LAWS(KER)-1973-2-6

K M RAMACHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On February 28, 1973
K. M. RAMACHANDRAN Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the petitioner was working as a lower division clerk in the District Hospital at Palghat internal audit revealed serious irregularities in respect of the collection and accounting of Hospital charges. It was seen from 185 diet sheets of patients that the petitioner had collected an amount of Rs. 1623.75 and that be had not accounted for the same. Then charge was framed against him for taking disciplinary action under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) R.1960, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, and a regular inquiry was conducted in which he was found guilty. The Director of Health Services, the second respondent, by Ext. P6 order dated 19-7-1967 punished him by stopping his increments for five years with cumulative effect and by ordering recovery of Rs. 792/- from his pay, On 20-8-1968 the Government sent Ext. P7 notice to him under R.34 of the Rules to show cause why the penalty should not be enhanced and he be removed from service. He submitted his explanation. On 2-2-1970 by Ext. P8 order the Government removed him from service. It is that order that is sought to be quashed here,

(2.) All appellate authorities under the Rules have got the power of review also under R.37. The appellate authority in some cases is not the Government. In such cases Government has independent power of review under R.34. In respect of Ext. P6 order Government is the appellate authority under R.34. Therefore in respect of Ext. P6 order the Government can exercise the power of review either under R.37 or under R.34.

(3.) The argument of the counsel for the petitioner is that when the Government could review Ext. P6 order both under R.34 and 37, R.37 being particular, it should have acted only under that rule and not under R.34 and that as R.37 prescribed a period of one year for initiating review proceedings taken up suo motu and Ext. P7 notice being more than one year after Ext. P6 order it was clearly barred. Both R.34 and 37 deal with appealable orders passed by subordinate authorities. While there is a period of limitation prescribed in R.37 for the exercise of power under it, there is no such limitation in R.34. But from the mere fact that a period of limitation is prescribed in R.37 for the exercise of the power under it, it cannot be taken that that Rule is particular and R.34 which prescribes no period of limitation is general. There is nothing in R.34 and 37 to show that while R.34 is general R.37 is particular. R.34 begins by saying: