COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Vs. ABIDA BEEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are respectively, the Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram, the Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department and the Chief Secretary to Government of Kerala. They have approached this Court, challenging Ext.P2 order of the Lok Ayukta, directing them to disburse the pay and allowances, due to the deceased husband of the first respondent herein, for the period from 26.06.1974 to 28.08.1988. The said respondent's husband was a Police Constable, who was dismissed from service on 26.06.1974, invoking the provisions of Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution of India, without holding any enquiry into the allegations against him. Finally, the Government, by order dated 30.07.1990, ordered to reinstate the complainant's husband and others, who were dismissed along with him, in service as it was found that there was procedural impropriety in terminating their services. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows:

(2.) I heard the learned Counsel on both sides. The learned Government Pleader, appearing for the petitioners reiterated the above contentions. The learned Counsel for the complainant, the first respondent herein submitted that once the order of termination is found to be illegal, the dismissed employees are entitled to get all consequential benefits, including arrears of salary.

(3.) The technical contention raised by the Government that the Lok Ayukta has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the first respondent herein, cannot be accepted. Even assuming the Lok Ayukta has no jurisdiction, if the order passed by it renders justice, this Court need not interfere with it. If the complainant had approached this Court, this Court would have passed an order, directing to grant the reliefs granted as per Ext.P3 order. In such situations, the High Court need not be too astute to interfere with such orders, as held by the Apex Court in Mohammed Swalleh v. IIIrd Additional District Judge (1988) 1 SCC 40. In the said decision, it was held as follows: