GOPALAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this case was employed as an acting lower Division Clerk in the High School for Girls, Kayamkulam. While he was thus employed the Government received information from the Deputy Inspector general of Police, C. I. D. and Railways that the petitioner was engaged in subversive activities. THE Government therefore directed the Director of Public instruction, who is the competent authority under R. 2 (c) of the Kerala State civil Services (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules, 1961, to take action against the petitioner persuant to R. 4 (a) of the Rules. Accordingly the director of Public Instruction issued Ext. P1 notice to the petitioner. THE reason for taking the proceeding against the petitioner was mentioned in the annexure to that notice. THE petitioner was asked to submit his explanation within 14 days of the receipt of the notice why he should not be proceeded against. He was also asked whether he wished for a personal hearing before the orders were passed. After this notice the petitioner was allowed to proceed on leave from 5-1-1963 onwards as provided for in R. 5 of the above Rules. THE petitioner submitted an explanation to the Governor on 7-1-1963 , a copy of which is marked Ext. P2. THE Director of Public Instruction gave the petitioner a personal hearing on 28-1-1963. THEreafter the Director of Public Instruction forwarded the representation of the petitioner to the Government with all the concerned papers with his recommendation. THE Government passed Ext. P6 order compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service.

(2.) IN Ext. P6 order it is stated that the Governor has examined the question and he was satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to give the petitioner any opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to the petitioner. It is further stated that the explanation of the petitioner was duly considered by the Governor and that he was of opinion that the petitioner was reasonably suspected to be engaged in subversive activities and that his retention in public service was on that account prejudicial to the national security.

(3.) ALTHOUGH there is some reason for thinking that the governor is to form the opinion himself under R. 3 above referred to, on a balance of all considerations I have come to the conclusion that as this is a matter relating primarily to the security of the Government, and as that pertains to his function as the head of the executive it is proper to construe the expression'governor' occurring in the rule as meaning only the 'state government'. In other words the Governor, in a matter like this, can act only on the advice of ministers. Therefore I think that the opinion formed by the state Government is a sufficient compliance with the provisions of R. 3 of the rules. If the State Government were satisfied that the petitioner was engaged in subversive activities prejudicial to the national security, the Government were competent to pass the order compulsorily retiring him.