PUNNOSE Vs. MANAGER P AND T MOTOR SERVICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A driver in the service of the P. and T. Motor Mail Service has approached this Court in a writ petition, wherein he has sought for orders for quashing the orders resulting in punishments to him-punishments being one of censure and also a direction to recover Rs. 250 being, the loss incurred by the department on account of the alleged misconduct of the petitioner in the matter of driving the vehicle. He also sought for an order directing the first respondent-Manager, P. and T. Motor Service, Ernakulam, to give the petitioner his due promotion over respondents 2 to 4 on the basis of his seniority and to give him all attendant benefits.

(2.) IT was strongly contended on behalf of the petitioner that, the two punishments as such--one of censure and another of recovery of Rs. 250--for the alleged damages caused by the petitioner could not be imposed by the authorities concerned; and also that in the matter of recovery of damages that had been ordered without any finding that the petitioner was negligent in his job of driving the vehicle, and that no specific amount was shown in the show-cause notice regarding the quantum of damages and that the punishment cannot stand.

(3.) AFTER going through the relevant records, I am of the view that the petitioner's contentions regarding the same are untenable. As pointed out in Challappan Nair v. State (1970) K. L. R. 162, by Justice Mathew, the authority is competent to impose two penalties on the delinquent. In that case the question came up under Rules 11 and 13 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960. It was contended on behalf of the delinquent officer there that no two penalties can be imposed cumulatively. The material part of Rule 13 provides: Government may impose any of the penalties specified in items [i] and [iii] to [viii] of Rule 11[1] on members of the State service. Rule 11 provides that, The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government servant. It was contended there that the Government was competent to impose only one of the penalties enumerated in Rule 11, and, therefore, the imposition of the two penalties upon the delinquent was not authorised. Mathew, J. , pointed out that this contention cannot be accepted. Following the ruling in A. I. R. 1961 S. C. 938, where the word, 'everyone of the Directors was construed as meaning all the Directors'. Justice Mathew said, 'looking at the context the same construction should be adopted in this service Rules also'.