PREMACHANDRAN Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is the order of dismissal passed against the two constables for their having accepted a bribe of Rs. 20,000 each, vitiated only for the reason that the action was taken by the State Government under the Kerala Civil Services (Vigilance Tribunal) Rules, 1960 and not the 'Kerala Police Departmental Officers Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1958' This is the short question that arises for consideration in these two appeals.

(2.) The appellants were working as constables in the Kerala Police Service. They had joined service on March 7, 1985 and January 27, 1987 respectively. On August 14, 1988 they were on patrol duty. They had found one Mr. Abdul Rahiman carrying a substantial amount of money. He was taken into custody. However, the petitioners had released him on taking Rs. 20,000 each. They were placed under suspension. The preliminary enquiry was prolonged for more than 4 years. Thereafter, they were served with charge sheet dated October 30, 1992. They had filed their respective replies on November 23, 1992 and March 17, 1993.

(3.) After examination of the matter, the Government decided that the enquiry should be conducted by the Vigilance Tribunal and not by the Circle Inspector who is normally entrusted with such a responsibility under the 'Kerala Police Departmental Officers Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1958'. The Tribunal, which is headed by a judicial officer, held an elaborate enquiry. On August 30, 1997 it submitted a report finding that the allegation was proved. It proposed that the penalty of stoppage of increment for ten years be awarded. The matter was considered by the Government in consultation with the Kerala Public Service Commission. Show-cause notices were given to the appellants. Ultimately vide orders dated June 13, 2000 and October 11, 2001 two appellants were ordered to be removed from service.