RAMA KRISHNAN THAMBI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ applicant was provisionally appointed in Government service as an Insurance Medical Officer under the Employees State Insurance Scheme. But by Ext. P 1 order dated 18-5-1963 the petitioner has been dismissed from service and it is stated in Ext. P 1 that the petitioner should be debarred from future employment under Government.

(2.) The reasons for this dismissal are also stated in the order Ext. P 1, the main ground being that the petitioner has been convicted in a criminal offence involving moral turpitude. The action is said to have been taken under R.18(i) read with R.11(viii) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960. This order was passed without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner and without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. And naturally this is challenged by counsel on behalf of the petitioner as being unsupportable. The reply to this is based on the proviso to Art.311 of the Constitution which reads as follows:-

(3.) It is admitted that if the proviso is applicable the procedure adopted cannot be questioned. But counsel on behalf of the petitioner has strenuously urged that the proviso can apply only to cases of conduct which had occurred after the appointment of a person to Government service. I must confess, the position is not clear from the wording of the proviso. But at the same time, there is no reason why the ambit of the proviso should be limited to conduct which occurred after the date of appointment. I am supported in the latter view by the decision of the Assam High Court reported in Jagadindra Nath Gupta v. Shillong and others (AIR 1959 Assam 134). No other decision has been brought to my notice and I have not been informed that the above decision has been criticised or overruled.