VISWANATHAN K.C Vs. D.PAPPACHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is aggrieved by his dismissal from the service of the Judicial Department in the State of Kerala for reason of not having disclosed that he was a deserter from the Indian Army, being dismissed from service as a consequence of "deserting the service" categorizing him as unfit for civil employment. The minimum facts required with respect to the service of the appellant is that he applied for the post of Peon notified by the Public Service Commission, hereinafter referred to as "the Commission", in 1987 and having qualified in the test conducted on 16.4.1988 and the consequential interview on 12.6.1989, he was posted as Peon in the Irrigation Department in the year 1992. In 1993, he obtained inter-departmental transfer to the Judicial Department and was promoted to the post of Lower Division Clerk, when the said proceedings were initiated against him on account of an anonymous complaint received by the Registrar General of the High Court of Kerala, who had administrative control over the officers and ministerial staff of the subordinate judiciary. The appellant, aggrieved by the dismissal from service and the unsuccessful appeal, was before the learned single Judge, who dismissed the writ petition by the impugned judgment.

(2.) Before the learned single Judge, the appellant had raised various contentions with respect to the procedural irregularities in the enquiry conducted as also the sustainability of the charges and the findings of the Enquiry Officer as confirmed by the first appellate authority. The various contentions raised by the appellant regarding the procedural irregularity were considered elaborately by the learned single Judge and rejected. The contention with respect to the disciplinary authority having conducted the preliminary enquiry and the memo of charges not being issued to the delinquent before the enquiry as also non-supply of the enquiry report before the disciplinary authority accepting the findings in the report were all considered and rejected by the learned single Judge. Noticing the facts available in the records; with respect to the above allegations and finding them to be contrary to what was pleaded, the bias alleged against the Enquiry Officer and the appellate authority being a person who participated in the disciplinary proceedings were also negated.

(3.) Before us, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant canvassed and asserted the procedural irregularities which were found against by the learned single Judge. The learned senior counsel strenuously urges the ground that the charge itself was that the appellant had not disclosed the factum of dismissal from the Armed Services in his application; which according to the appellant could not have been disclosed, since he himself was aware of it only in the year 1989 and the application to the 'Commission' was made in the year 1987. One other contention urged in the same lines is that the application he is said to have submitted before the Commission was not forthcoming in the enquiry and hence no such charge could be laid and successfully proved against him and the order of the disciplinary authority based on the enquiry report and confirmed in appeal would have to be set aside on that short ground. This, according to the learned senior counsel, cuts at the root of the matter and on that ground alone it would be eminently possible for this Court to hold that the entire proceedings are vitiated. Needless to say, this was urged before the learned single Judge also and was rejected in the impugned judgment.