K K RAMACHANDRAN MASTER Vs. K JYOTHILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Does Rule 22 of the Kerala Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the "Conduct Rules", create a bar to jurisdiction and proceedings under the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, hereinafter referred to as the "Act", to act on a complaint filed by a Government servant without the written permission of the Head of office or the Government, as the case may be

(2.) The first respondent, a gazetted Government servant filed Ext. P1 complaint before the Lok Ayukta, making a complaint against certain actions attributed to the petitioner. Petitioner filed Ext. P2 interlocutory application before the Lok Ayukta taking the stand that those proceedings are not maintainable in view of Rule 22 of the Conduct Rules. This writ petition is filed alleging that the Lok Ayukta is not taking up that interlocutory application for consideration.

(3.) The Conduct Rules are framed primarily to govern the filed of discipline among Government servants. A perusal of the said Rules, which are statutory, would show that the conduct of a Government servant is sought to be regulated in terms of public policy. Therefore, when the conduct of the Government servant in violation of the Conduct Rules results in pricking the public policy that governs the making of a particular rule, the Courts may, while deciding a lis to which he is a party, take into consideration his conduct referable to such rule among the Conduct Rules, to determine his entitlement to the assistance of the courts for relief. A classic example of this shade of jurisprudence was recognised by this Court while the Division Bench considered Rule 16(l)(b) of the Conduct Rules in Manmadhan v. Krishnappan Unni, 1985 KerLT 670.