G. RAVINDRAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A work superintendent, working in the Public Works (Irrigation) Department, seeks to quash Ext. P5 order dated 15-1-1980 of the Government of Kerala, barring his two increments with cumulative effect. While the petitioner was working at Walayar Dam, he was in charge of Kallepully Canal, the water of which was used for irrigating paddy fields. There were complaints against him that he was demanding bribe from the cultivators for diverting water in the Kallepully Canal and also accepting bribe. Those who did not oblige him was denied water from the irrigation canal and as a result the crops in their paddy fields were destroyed. A case was registered on a complaint by the X Branch Police, Palghat against the petitioner and the Junior Engineer. After due enquiry, a report was submitted to the Government stating that it has been prima facie disclosed that the petitioner was guilty. Some how the case against the Junior Engineer was said to have been dropped. The Government framed three charges against the petitioner as stated in Ext. P1 and called for his explanation for the same. As the explanation given was found to be unsatisfactory, the matter was sent to the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings. The Tribunal examined the witnesses produced on either side and fully enquired into the matter. On the conclusion of the enquiry, the Tribunal found that charge No. 1 relating to the demand and acceptance of bribe by the petitioner has not been proved; but part of charges Nos. 2 and 3 have been proved. The Tribunal recommended a minor punishment of barring two increments of the petitioner with cumulative effect. Ext. P4 is the judgment of the Tribunal.

(2.) Thereafter, the Government on consideration of the report of the Tribunal accepted its finding and also the recommendation regarding punishment of barring two increments of the petitioner with cumulative effect.

(3.) Several grounds were urged by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner in support of this petition. The counsel contended that Ext. P5 is entirely vitiated by illegalities and also by violation of the principles of natural justice.