BHAGAVAL DAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. Abdul Kaffar, the Petitioner in O.P. 14255 of 1993 and C.K. Bhagaval Das, the petitioner in O.P.No. 15625 of 1993 were holding the posts of the Sales tax Officer, Agricultural Income tax and Sales tax, Kollam and Additional Appellate Tribunal, Agricultural Income tax and Sales tax, Kozhikode respectively. Upon conviction for the offences under S.5(2) read with 5(l)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, each of them was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for six months. A. Abdul Kaffar, the Petitioner in O.P. 14255/93 filed Criminal Appeal 281/93 and C.K. Bhagaval Das, the petitioner in O.P.15625/93 filed Criminal Appeal 299/93, before this court. On interlocutory applications made by them, the sentences imposed on them were suspended and they were released on bail.

(2.) The question is whether the Government in exercise of its authority under the second proviso to sub-article (2) of Art.311 of the Constitution of India and R.18 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 is bound (i) to follow the principles of natural justice and (ii) consult the Public Service Commission before dismissing a government servant.

(3.) Art.311 of the Constitution of India enjoins that no member of a civil service of a State shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. But, the first proviso stipulates that it shall not be necessary to give a second opportunity of making a representation against the penalty imposed. The second proviso to sub-article (2) of Art.311 of the Constitution of India lays down that the provision as to the inquiry and reasonable opportunity of being heard, in respect of the charges shall not apply, inter alia, where a person is dismissed, removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge. The present case falls under clause (a) of the second proviso to sub-art.(2) of Art.311 of the Constitution. The Government was therefore right in proceeding under R.18 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules which, consistently with the second proviso to sub-article (2) of Art.311, lays down that the procedure under R.15, 16 and 17 which prescribe the procedure for imposing the penalties need not be followed.