BALAKRISHNAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS, Assistant Excise Commissioner, and Circle Inspector of Excise, under the service of the first respondent, have approached this Court challenging the validity of an order dated October 25, 1995 placing them under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings.

(2.) THE incident which led to the suspension originated as follows: When the first petitioner was working as Assistant Excise Commissioner, Aluva Range, during 1994-95, Arrack shops Group No. 11/94-95 of Aluva Range was bid in auction by one Vi-jayan. He was issued with a permit No. 243/94-95 by the first petitioner for importing 12,000 litres of rectified sprit from Madhya Pradesh. The contractor on the strength of the permit imported 12,000 litres of rectified sprit and brought the same to his godown No. 3/94-95 at Ampattukavu. The licensee is governed by the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, hereinafter called the 'rules' and by the various provisions of the Kerala Abkari Act. As per Rule 8 (15) the rectified sprit imported shall be released to the licensee from the godown only after subjecting them to a chemical analysis. As per rules one sample was sent for chemical analysis. The Chemical Examiner issued a certificate that the rectified sprit is fit for human consumption after proper dilution. On the basis of the certificate, 7,000 litres of rectified sprit was released from the godown and the same was converted into arrack. Three samples of arrack were taken and one was sent for chemical analysis. After chemical examination the chemical Examiner issued a certificate stating that the arrack contained 0. 044g/100ml acetaldehyde and the same is not fit for human consumption. Consequently, 7,000 litres of arrack was frozen, sealed and kept under the custody of the first petitioner in the licensed godown. The remaining 5,000 litres of rectified sprit was reduced to arrack was subjected to chemical analysis. The same was certified to be fit for human consumption, and the same was released to the contractor for sale.

(3.) THE contract period of 1994-95 expired in March, 1995. The same contractor bid the shops in the auction for the year 1995- 96. The contractor opened a new godown at Keezhmadu. 7,000 litres of arrack certified as unfit for human consumption which belonged to the contractor was shifted to the godown at Keezhmadu. For the year 1995-96 the contractor requested for a further chemical examination of the arrack blended from 7,000 litres which was once certified to be unfit for human consumption. It is seen that the first petitioner issued a letter No. E4-8767/94 dated March 23, 1995 to the second petitioner with specific reference to Ext. P3 to find out a solution in the matter urgently and to report compliance. The second petitioner therefore took a sample of arrack for chemical analysis. The Chemical Examiner issued a certificate on April 3, 1995 certifying that the arrack is fit for human consumption. The second petitioner sent a report to the first petitioner requesting sanction for release of the arrack. The first petitioner then sent a letter dated July 31, 1995 to the Junior Scientific Officer to take samples of arrack kept frozen in the godown in the presence of the second petitioner. The second petitioner was directed to assist the Junior Scientific Officer. The Junior Scientific Officer then issued Ext. P7 certificate dated August 7, 1995 stating that all samples are free from noxious materials injurious to health. It was stated that item Nos. 1, 10, 11 and 13 are fit for human consumption and other items are fit for human consumption after proposed dilution only. The first petitioner then issued Ext. P8 letter dated August 16, 1995 to the second petitioner to release the frozen quantity of arrack to the contractor after making it of the prescribed strength, since it is certified as fit for human consumption.