SADASIVAN PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, an Assistant Conservator of Forests, was placed under suspension by an order dated 24-11974, copy Ext. P1. This order referred to a series of charges against the petitioner on which government was proposing to make a detailed enquiry before the Tribunal for disciplinary Proceedings. THE charges concerned the conduct of the petitioner as Assistant Conservator of Forests, Teak Plantation Division, Parambikulam from 191969 to 23-5-1971. It is said that loss was caused to the Government by removal of timber and such other acts affecting the interests of the Government. It was said in Ext. P1 that there were several Forest Contractors and other forest subordinate staff to give evidence as prosecution witnesses before the Tribunal and that the continuance of the petitioner in service even at a distant place was likely to influence the evidence of the witnesses to be examined before the Tribunal. This order is attacked as incompetent as also mala fide. To understand this attack it is necessary to refer to the previous history of the case.

(2.) WHILE the petitioner was working as Assistant conservator of Forests, Teak Plantation Division, Parambikulam, there were reports of large scale smuggling of timber. It was said that this was possible by reason of the collusion of the contractors with the officers of the department. The petitioner was placed under suspension on the basis of the report and an enquiry was ordered to be conducted by the Ex-Branch Vigilance division. This was by order dated 19-3-1971. This order was subsequently reviewed by the Government on 3-12-1971. The petitioner's suspension was vacated and the petitioner was reinstated. It was thereafter that as a result of the enquiry conducted by the Ex-Branch Vigilance Division the Government was satisfied of a prima facie case against the petitioner and in those circumstances the Government passed a fresh order dated 17-7-1973 placing the petitioner again under suspension. This order of suspension was attacked before this Court in O. P. No. 2442 of 1973. That attack succeeded as evidenced by Ext. P2 judgment of this court. It succeeded mainly on the ground that there was no proper consideration of the relevant facts in placing the petitioner under suspension by the order impugned. It was further observed by this Court that if the continuance of the petitioner in the department, wherever he was, will be detrimental to or embarrass the enquiry that may be a circumstance which may occasion review of the earlier order of reinstatement. Evidently what was wanting in the order which was impugned in the earlier petition was made up by passing Ext. P1 stating the reasons for suspending the petitioner.

(3.) IT cannot also be said that Ext. P1 order is bad for the same reason as that which vitiated the earlier order. The earlier order was passed in terms of R. 10 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1968 without referring to the facts. Advertence has been made to the facts here. The suspension was evidently not under R. 10 (1) (c) but under R. 10 (1) (a ). IT would appear from Ext. P2 that it was assumed in the earlier order that suspension was under R. 10 (1) (c ). That assumption has evidently been made as seen from the judgment because of the use of the expression "then prevailing circumstances and public interest" in the order of suspension impugned in the earlier judgment. That order is Ext. P3. But these words it appears to me, are not words which refer merely to suspension under R. 10 (1) (c) but qualifies the order of suspension whether it be under R. 10 (1) (a), (b) or (c ). Whatever that be, there is no case here that the order in this case is passed under R. 10 (1) (c ). The order has been passed under R. 10 (1) (a), for, the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner are seen to be contemplated at that time. Therefore I see no reason to hold that the order Ext. P1 is bad for the same reason as that which vitiated the earlier order.