STATE OF KERALA Vs. K C GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against the judgment in O. P. No. 7200/1983 quashing Ext. P1 order dated 16-8-1983 by the State Government placing the 1st respondent petitioner, the Chief Engineer (Arbitration) under suspension, in exercise of the power under R.10 of Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960

(2.) The 1st respondent entered Government service in the Public Works Department on 4-7-1951 and is to retire on July 1984. He took charge as Chief Engineer (Arbitration) on 4-3-1983. In his capacity as Chief Engineer (Arbitration), the 1st respondent had to discharge quasi judicial functions of adjudicating on claims in arbitration cases between the Government and contractors and to pass awards. The aggrieved party could challenge the award where there is misconduct on the part of the arbitrator or on the ground that the award has been improperly procured or is otherwise invalid.

(3.) The 1st respondent in his capacity as Chief Engineer (Arbitration) passed an Award No. 61/82 on 29-4-1983 for Rs. 2,32,523/-. The Law Officer, PWD., who is also an Additional Secretary to Law Department in furnishing his legal opinion on this award by his letter dated 13-7-1983 stated that the award is liable to be set aside, enumerating the grounds on which the award could be challenged in court. On perusal of the letter the Secretary to Government, Water and Power Department opined that seldom can an award which is a non speaking one be successfully challenged; that the excessive award is not passed on justice but other considerations which could include corrupt motives on the part of the arbitrator. He therefore suggested by his note dated 5-8-1983 that the Chief Engineer (Arbitration) may be immediately shifted before further damages are done and that Vigilance Enquiry may be ordered about the acquisition of assets by the officer also. On 6-8-1983 the Secretary to Government, PWD., agreed to the action suggested. When the matter was placed before the Chief Secretary on 8-8-1983, the Chief Secretary felt that unless strong action taken as a deterrent, this kind of reckless administration will continue. He recommended that the arbitrator may be placed under suspension pending detailed investigation and enquiry. The recommendation was accepted and the Government on 16-8-1983 passed the impugned order of suspension pointing out therein that serious official irregularities and grave misconduct on the part of the 1st respondent had been brought to the notice of the Government, and that the Government considers that there is prima facie case against the officer which calls for a detailed enquiry into the matter, and the officer be placed under suspension with immediate effect.