BALACHANDRAN PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a Head Constable in the police force of the Kerala State . He retired from service with effect from 30-4-1993. Preliminary investigation into the misconduct consisting of removal of an important document, was made. On 13-10-1993 memo of charges in respect of the misconduct was served on the petitioner by the Special Branch Inspector, Kottaya m. THE exact date of service is not known. THE specific case of the petitioner is that he retired from the Government service and that the proceedings against him cannot be initiated after his retirement.

(2.) THE Deputy Superintendent of Police (Administration), Kottayam has filed a counter affidavit. He admits that the memo of charges proposing disciplinary proceedings was served on the petitioner on 19-10-1993. THEre is no statement in the counter affidavit that the sanction of the Government which is necessary for commencing enquiry against a retired employee under sub-rule (1) of R. 3 was obtained before serving the charge memo on the petitioner. It must therefore be taken to be established that the service of charge memo in the proceedings is without the sanction of the government.

(3.) I, therefore, allow the Original Petition and quash the disciplinary proceedings purported to have been instituted by the charge memo dated 13-10-1993 (Ext. P2 ). Original Petition is allowed. . .