N PRAKASAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA; COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS CIVIL STATION; BALAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a delinquent employee, who was imposed with punishment of dismissal as per Ext.P4, which was modified and re-instated in service with lesser punishment as per Ext.P6, is before this Court alleging bias and total procedural irregularity in the conduct of the enquiry. The petitioner was issued with a charge sheet by the 4th respondent, who was at that time holding the office of the 3rd respondent.

(2.) The petitioner is said to have filed detailed objections, dissatisfied with which, the Commissioner had ordered an enquiry, in which the 4th respondent was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. The petitioner at that point of time itself, approached this Court alleging bias on the 4th respondent, since he had conducted the preliminary enquiry, which led to the charges alleged against the petitioner. This Court by Ext.P2 judgment left open all such contentions to be urged at the time of challenge to any punishment imposed; as a result of the proceeding.

(3.) However, this Court was careful to notice that there is no proposition that the disciplinary authority himself cannot hold enquiry. The 3rd respondent was the disciplinary authority of the petitioner, which post, the 4th respondent was holding at that point of time. The petitioner was also directed to take up such contentions before the Commissioner, who had ordered the enquiry and had appointed the 4th respondent as the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner is said to have taken up such contention, which was rejected and the enquiry was proceeded with, which is alleged to be ex-parte and eventually an order at Ext.P4 is seen to have been passed, imposing the punishment of dismissal.