JOSE Vs. INSPECTOR - GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN order Ext.P -7 produced along with this peti­tion passed under rule 37 of the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries,Punishment and Appeal Rules,1958 for short the Rules,has been challenged in this petition.

(2.) THE petitioner,a Circle Inspector was suspended under rule 7(1 )(b)of the Rules by Ext.P -1 order dated 21st July 1966 pending a criminal trial.The trial ended in the conviction of the petitioner on 5th April 1967.By Ext.P -2 order dated 7th April 1967 the petitioner was dis­missed from service with effect from 5th April 1967.However an appeal taken by the petitioner from the conviction was allowed and the petitioner was acquitted on 30th January 1968.Consequently the petitioner was reinstated in the service on 18th June 1968 by Ext.P -3 order.It is admitted before us that the period from 5th April 1967 to 18th June 1968 has been treated as having been spent by the petitioner on duty and he has been given his full pay and allowances for that period.But re­garding the period from 24th July 1966 to 5th April 1967 a notice Ext.P -5 dated 5th December 1969 was issued to the petitioner to show cause why this period spent under suspension,that is from 24th July 1966 to 4th April 1967 should not be treated as on duty for the limited purposes viz.for leave and increments and why his pay and allowances should not be restricted to the amount of the subsistence allowance to which the petitioner was eligible during that period The petitioner's reply to Ext.P -5 is Ext.P -6.This was considered and the order Ext.P -7 was thereafter passed giving effect to the proposal in Ext.P -5.

(3.) THE question arising for determination turns on the wording of the first paragraph of rule 37.What is the meaning to be attributed to the words "is held to have been unjustifiable or not wholly justifiable " ;.