ENOS JEEVAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is to quash the disciplinary proceedings taken against the petitioner resulting ultimately in Ext. P1 order of the Government imposing a penalty of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect. There were altogether five charges against the petitioner which will be found set out in Ext. P-1. Preliminary enquiries were conducted by X-Branch Vigilance Division into some of the allegations, which revealed a prima facie case of misconduct and irregularity. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated. Charges were framed, and were referred for enquiry and report to the Tribunal for Disciplinary proceedings. This was obviously on the basis that a major punishment was proposed to be inflicted and that it was necessary to sanction and follow the procedure prescribed by R.15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960. The Tribunal found that none of the charges had been substantiated. The proceedings were submitted to the disciplinary authority, namely, the Government of Kerala. That authority disagreed with the Tribunal in respect of its findings on charges 2 and 3. We may briefly extract these charges:

(2.) In the light of the above provisions of the rules and unaided by any authorities to which we shall presently turn, it appears to us that there is no ground for grievance on account of any violation of the provisions of the Statutory Rules. The disciplinary proceedings started with a proposal to impose any of the major penalties under sub clauses (v) to (ix) of R.11. Therefore the procedure under R.15 was followed and the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings sent in its enquiry report On receipt of the report and after consideration of the same it was ultimately decided to impose only one of the minor penalties under sub clauses (i) to (iv) of R.11 and this was done by Ext. P-1 order. The procedure is in strict conformity with R.15 sub-rule (13) of the Rules.

(3.) But counsel for the petitioner relied upon R.16 and the amplification of the procedure sanctioned thereby as given in the Manual for Disciplinary Proceedings and on the decisions in Narayan Misra v. State of Orissa 1969 (1) SCWR 829, Narayanan Nair v. State of Kerala and another 1970 KLJ 1069 and Surendra Sen v. Director of Survey and Land Records and others 1975 KLT 582 . In 1969 (1) SCWR 829 the position was that the enquiring officer acquitted the appellant before the Supreme Court of the first two of the three charges framed against him, but found him guilty of the third charge. He recommended that the appellant be reinstated in service. He also suggested that the period of suspension be treated as sufficient punishment The disciplinary authority, namely, the Conservator of Forests, called upon the appellant to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service, observing that the proposed punishment was light for the serious offences disclosed. The Conservator of Forests accepted not only the third charge but also the other two charges, in respect of which the enquiring officer had absolved the appellant. The grievance was that the Conservator of Forests should not have taken note of the charges of which he had been absolved by the enquiring officer without giving the appellant notice of his intention to do so. It was observed by the Supreme Court: