CHANDU NAIR P Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who was a sub-inspector of police in the service of the State was dismissed by the State Government from service by Ex. P. 13 order. It is this order that is impugned in this writ application.

(2.) THE first contention that has been raised is that the procedure adopted of directing the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings to conduct an enquiry against the alleged misconduct of the petitioner is against the rules applicable. According to counsel for the petitioner, the enquiry against the petitioner can be conducted only in accordance with the provisions in the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1958. It is urged that the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960, apply only to such services as are enumerated in Schs. I and II thereto. The Kerala police personnel are not included therein. So it is urged that an enquiry has to be conducted by an officer appointed in accordance with Rule 8 (1) (iii) of the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1958, or by the appointing authority or the head of the department or an officer of the department appointed by the appointing authority or the head of the department or a special officer or Tribunal appointed by the Government for the purpose. It is said that there has been no enquiry conducted as envisaged by the above rules by the authorities mentioned therein and that there has been no special appointment of any special Tribunal as envisaged by that rule. The whole enquiry proceedings conducted by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings is, therefore, ineffective.

(3.) I do not think that tills contention can stand. The Kerala Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1960, will apply to all officers under the rule-making control of the State Government other than those referred to in Article 314 of the Constitution of India [see Rule 1 (c)]. The petitioner also comes under the category of officers to whom the said rules are applicable. So the Kerala Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1960, will apply to the petitioner as well. Rule 4 thereof stated: The Government may refer to the Tribunal any case or class of cases which, they consider, should be dealt with by the Tribunal. This rule enables the Government to refer to the Tribunal a case against the petitioner and the Tribunal has been defined in Rule 2 (c) to mean the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings. So the reference to the Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal in this case seems to be warranted by the provisions of the Kerala Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1960. The only question, therefore, is whether the provisions of the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment ,and Appeal Rules, 19b8, make It obligatory that action should be taken against police officers only under these rules. There is nothing like that seen from those rules. So it is for the Government to decide under which provision action will have to be taken depending upon the nature of the misconduct against the particular officer and the nature of the enquiry that will have to be conducted. The first contention raised by counsel on behalf of the petitioner must, therefore, fail.