V.E.SURENDRANATHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Interference declined by the Tribunal as per Ext.P6 in the original application filed by the petitioner/applicant, challenging the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed upon him is sought to be intercepted in this original petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner had entered service of the respondent/police as a Sub Inspector and thereafter he was promoted to the post of Circle Inspector. While serving as a Circle Inspector, some incident of serious delinquency was noted against him, particularly as to the alleged acceptance of bribe, which led to a vigilance enquiry by the Vigilance Tribunal. The Vigilance Tribunal, Kozhikode, after conducting an enquiry in terms of relevant points of law, recommended punishment of 'compulsory retirement' from service in terms of Rule 11(1)(VI) of Kerala Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 (the proper rule which ought to have been applied was the Kerala Police Departmental Inquires, Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1958) and obviously, there was a misquoting of Rules.

(3.) The petitioner, on issuance of show-cause notice based on the findings in the enquiry, sought to challenge the same by filing O.P.No.3933 of 2001 before this Court, particularly with reference to the Rule cited in the said notice. The said original petition was disposed of enabling the petitioner to file proper representation to the Public Service Commission. On filing such representation the Public Service Commission advised the Government to proceed with further steps in accordance with the Kerala Police Departmental Inquires, Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1958 and not under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. It was accordingly, that the matter was considered and finalized by passing Annexure-A1(a) order dated 05.10.2002 imposing punishment of 'compulsory retirement' to the petitioner.