VIJAYAN Vs. HIGH COURT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "reputation is what men and women think of us: character is what God and Angels know of us" is the observation of Thomas paine. A Government servant is bound to maintain absolute integrity at all times. Does it extend to his private life? If so, to what extent and how does it affect the reputation of his Master - the Government? What should be the charge in such circumstances? Should the charge be only in respect of the prescribed misconduct? Does it make any difference in the matter of punishment if the proceedings are initiated at a time when an employee is a probationer? these are some of the interesting questions arising for consideration in this original Petition.

(2.) THE issue relates to disciplinary proceedings taken against the petitioner culminating in termination. THE petitioner while undergoing probation in the post of l. D. Clerk and working at Sub Court, Thodupuzha was issued Ext. P1 memo of charges. THE sole charge reads as follows: "that you, Sri. A. K. Vijayan, while holding the post of L. D. Clerk, Munsiffs Court, Thodupuzha on 11. 5. 1992, had abducted Smt. Mary, wife of Sri. Unni while Sri. Unni was not in the house and that in August 1992 attempted to abduct Kumari Money the eldest daughter of Sri. Unni with the assistance of M/s. Gopalan @ Sunni and Binu S/o. Johnson friends of yourself and thereby committed moral turpitude of such nature as to bear a conduct unbecoming of a responsible Government servant. "

(3.) AT Para. 9 of the enquiry report, the Enquiry Officer clearly recorded his finding that the charge against the petitioner is not proved. To quote "on going through the evidence of the witnesses already discussed above, there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that the wife of the complainant was "abducted" by the delinquent or that he attempted to "abduct" the complainant's daughter, in the strict legal sense of that word. There is no evidence in this case to show that the complainant's wife is presently staying with the delinquent. The evidence given by witness No. 2 is also insufficient to hold that the delinquent had attempted to abduct her, as alleged. " The Enquiry Officer did not stop there. According to him, there was evidence regarding illicit relationship of the petitioner with Smt. Mary. Therefore, it was reported that "but, there is strong, acceptable and uncontroverted evidence given by the complainant and his witnesses which conclusively show that the delinquent had strong intimacy with the wife of the complainant which in the circumstances proved can only be described as illicit. " It was further reported that "the illicit intimacy which the delinquent had with the wife of the complainant and which ultimately resulted in her leaving the company of her husband shows the lack of integrity on the part of the delinquent. The conduct of the delinquent is contrary to modesty and good morals and which is unbecoming of a Government servant. The delinquent, in his dealings with the lady, had not kept up the integrity and standard expected for a Government servant. The complainant has been able to establish that the conduct of the delinquent towards Mary, the wife of the complainant, was not befitting a Government servant and that by his conduct he committed moral turpitude of such nature as to bear a conduct unbecoming of a government servant. The charge, to that extent, stands proved. "