VELAYUDHAN PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case has given me considerable difficulty and it is not without hesitation that I have come to the conclusion that no case has been made out for interference under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The question that arises for determination is a simple one, whether a minor penalty as it is called under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)Rules, 1960, has been rightly and legally inflicted on the petitioner, the penalty being the withholding of his increments for three years by an order which has been produced and marked in these proceedings as Ex. P-7. Another followed Ex. P-7 after the writ application was moved by the petitioner and that order happened to be passed because it was realised that by the time ex. P-7 order was issued the petitioner had reached the maximum of his scale of rs. 250-400, thus there being no scope for giving effect to Ex. P-7. The order that followed therefore directed that the equivalent of the money value of the penalty mentioned in Ex. P-7 should be realised from the petitioner. THIS was apparently done by virtue of R. 11 (1) (iv) (b) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules.

(2.) EX. P-7 order came to be passed in the following circumstances. The petitioner was the Assistant Surgeon attached to the Ayiroor dispensary somewhere near Parur. He remained there till August 1960. An anonymous petition was sent to the Director of Health Services which was apparently received by that authority by the end of January or early in february 1962 wherein a statement has been made that a large quantity of the synthomy-cetin capsules received in the dispensary on 12th December 1959 has been misused. It was also mentioned in that communication that a verification of the issue register in which is recorded the issue of stocks from the store to the dispensary would indicate that 220 capsules of the above medicine was issued on 15th April 1960 and a further quantity of 250 capsules on 15th May 1960 and another 500 capsules on the same day, 15th May 1960. EX. P-1, therefore, was issued to the petitioner and his explanation to the same is EX. P-2. This was followed by another query which is evidenced by EX. P-3, and a further explanation, EX. P-4. Apparently not satisfied with EXs. P-2 and P-4 a charge EX. P-5, was framed against the petitioner, and as I understand EX. P-5, it charged the petitioner with misuse of costly medicines. His explanation to the charge is ex. P-6 and the order, EX. P. 7, followed wherein it is said that the charge is made out and hence the penalty of withholding of three increments, as I said earlier, was imposed on the petitioner.

(3.) THESE matters are supposed to have been dealt with by ex. P-7 order. The Government Pleader has also made available to me the notes of the Director of Health Services in submitting the charge, explanation and the relevant papers before the Government, the Disciplinary Authority. The Director of Health Services came to the conclusion that the explanation of the petitioner is not satisfactory and that there has been issue of the medicines far in excess of the requirements of the dispensary. In fact, in one of the notes put up, it is said that the contentions raised by the petitioner are technical and that is the reason why it appears that the Director expressed his views before submitting the papers before the Government. It appears to me that some of these contentions are technical. The petitioner had mentioned about the number of capsules required for the treatment of an enteric case. The materials available before me do not disclose what would be the normal requirements in such cases. The Director seems to take the view that the contentions urged by the petitioner are not well founded. I do not think that I am entitled to sit on judgment on this conclusion. Nor am I able to say that the view that out-patients could not have been treated with this medicine is arbitrary or perverse. THESE points are mentioned in the order, Ex. P-7. Nothing however, is said specifically regarding the plea of the petitioner that not only in-patients but out-patients have also been treated with Synthomycetin excepting that patients suffering from enteric fever cannot be treated as out-patients. In fact, all the contentions raised by the petitioner have not been dealt with as such in the order. It was in view of this that I felt for a while that the order, Ex. P-7, is unsatisfactory.