GEORGE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner was holding the post of Chief conservator of Forests in the Forest Department of the Kerala Government from 16th October 1958 onwards. But he was placed under suspension on 28th March 1967 pending enquiry into certain charges of misconduct levelled against him. It is unnecessary for the purpose of this case to narrate in detail the nature of the charges levelled against the petitioner, the defence put forward by him and the fairly long drawn out enquiries held into those charges. Suffice it to say that the charges formed the subject-matter of two separate enquiries conducted by a Tribunal specially appointed for that purpose and based on the reports submitted by the Tribunal the Government ultimately passed final orders on 17th April 1972 finding the petitioner guilty of several of the charges framed against him in agreement with the recommendation of the Public Service Commission and directing that an amount of rs. 25 per mensem be reduced from the pension of the petitioner who had by that time retired from service on superannuation with effect from 25th January 1970 while he was under suspension. In the wake of the final order so passed in the disciplinary enquiry it naturally became necessary for the Government to take up the question as to how the period during which the petitioner was under suspension should be treated under R. 56 of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules. As a preliminary measure for taking a decision in regard to the said matter the government issued to the petitioner the memo Ext. P-6 dated 24th November 1972 intimating the petitioner that it was provisionally proposed to treat the period of suspension of the petitioner from 28th March 1967 to 25th January 1970 as period spent out of duty for all purposes except for pay and allowances which would be limited to the subsistence allowance already drawn by him during the said period. It was mentioned in Ext P-6 that since some of the serious charges had been proved against the petitioner Government considered that the petitioner's suspension for the whole of the aforesaid period was justified. THE petitioner was directed to show cause. within 15 days of the receipt of ext. P-6 why the proposal mentioned therein should not be implemented by the government. In reply to the said memo the petitioner put in a fairly detailed representation as per Ext. P-7 dated 15th December 1972. THEreafter the Government passed final orders in the said matter on 6th March 1973 confirming the proposal formulated in Ext. P-6. Ext. P-8 is a copy of the said order and the prayer in this writ petition is that Ext P 8 should be quashed.

(2.) ALTHOUGH the petitioner has put forward a contention that the order Ext. P-8 is violative of Art. 14 and 19 of the Constitution, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner stated that he is not pressing the said contention particularly in view of the Presidential Order made under art. 359 of the Constitution.

(3.) IN the present case the Government had expressed its view in Ext. P-6 that the charges proved against the petitioner were of a serious nature' and that hence the suspension for the period from 28th March 1967 to 25th January 1970 was justified. After adverting to the points raised by the petitioner in the representation filed by him, the Government expressed its conclusion in Ext. P-8 that the explanation of the petitioner was not satisfactory and that hence there were no grounds for modifying the proposals contained in Ext. P-6. Such being the conclusion reached by the Government it was unnecessary for the Government to reiterate in Ext. P-8 what they had already mentioned in Ext. P-6, namely, that the charges proved against the petitioner were serious. I see no substance at all in the contention. From a perusal of the final order dated 17th April 1972 passed by the Government in the disciplinary proceedings, it is seen that the charges that were held to have been established against the petitioner were of a very serious nature. IN o. P. No. 2756 of 1972 which the present writ petitioner had filed before this court challenging the order dated 17th April 1972 a Division Bench of this court while dealing with a contention raised by the present writ petitioner that the punishment imposed on him was wholly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges had also occasion to observe about the seriousness of the charges proved against the petitioner. It cannot therefore be said that the view taken by the Government in Exts. P-6 and P-8 that the charges proved against the petitioner were serious in nature and that hence the suspension of the petitioner could not be regarded as wholly unjustifiable is in any sense unreasonable or perverse.