P ARAVINDAKSHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue for decision in this writ petition is as to what is "hearing" in the context of an opportunity for it, before the dismissal of a Government servant.

(2.) On certain counts of indiscipline, the Vigilance Tribunal, as the enquiring authority, entered findings prejudicial to the petitioner. Based on that, the Government tentatively decided to dismiss the petitioner from service. Ext.P6 show cause notice was accordingly issued, calling upon him to show cause against such tentative decision of the Government. He filed Ext.P8 reply, challenging the findings of the Tribunal on the merits, the findings of guilt and the proposed punishment. By Ext.P9, the petitioner was called to appear for a personal hearing before an officer in the Government. Ex.P10 is the notes of arguments submitted by him at that hearing. What followed is the impugned Ext.Pl 1 Government Order, by which, the tentative decision to dismiss the petitioner from service is affirmed.

(3.) In support of the contentions of the petitioner, his learned Counsel, relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in Managing Director. ECIL. Hyderabad etc. v. B. Karunakar etc., 1994 1 LLJ 162 and in State of U.P. v. Harendra Arora and Anr., 2001 6 SCC 392, argued that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to show cause against the findings of the Vigilance Tribunal, which was the enquiring authority, before the disciplinary authority concluded against the petitioner and decided to act upon the findings of the Vigilance Tribunal to propose a tentative punishment. It is also argued that the non-granting of such an opportunity of hearing, in relation to the enquire report, has gravely prejudiced the petitioner, which is also a plea specifically raised in the writ petition.