ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER Vs. MOHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant before us was served with a chargesheet and punished for the misconduct alleged by order (Ext. P-14) which has been produced along with the writ application which gave rise to the order under appeal. Another order Ex. P-16 was passed afterwards, as we understand it, under R.56 of the Kerala Service Rules. These two orders were challenged in the writ application. This Court declined to go into the question of the validity or otherwise of the order Ex. P-14 because an appeal from that order was pending but quashed the demand contained in Ex. P-16.

(2.) The question that arises for determination depends on the interpretation of R.56 of the Kerala Service Rules which reads as follows:

(3.) However, an order under R.56 must be one passed after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case. We consider that such an order should normally be passed only after affording an opportunity to the employee concerned to state his case. It was so held in Vasant Raghunath Gokhale v. The State of Maharashtra and another reported in 1963 Bom. 137, the principle of which decision has been approved by this Court in W. A. No. 146 of 1964. The order Ex. P-6 in this case was passed without giving such an opportunity to the first respondent. That order therefore cannot stand and will stand quashed.