T P VISWANATHAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was a clerk under the Kerala State Electricity Board and the President of the Trade Union, representing the workers of the Idukki Project. In connection with a strike in February 1969 and certain disturbances consequent on the same, a criminal case under S.129-B, 147,149,307, 332 etc. of the IPC. was charged against him and others; but following the report of a District Judge as Commission of Enquiry, the case was withdrawn. Shortly thereafter proceedings were instituted against the appellant under the Kerala State Electricity Board (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1969 and the Vigilance Officer of the Board was appointed Special Officer to hold the enquiry under Regulation.16 of the Regulations. The Officer informed the Board that the enquiry may be held by some authority empowered to summon witnesses. By Ext. P9 G. O., the Government (1st Respondent) referred the case to the 3rd Respondent, the Commissioner and Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings. This was followed by Ext. P10 notification under S 9(2) of the Kerala Enquiries and Summonses Act 1960, investing the Tribunal with the powers of the Civil Court to summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses etc. These two notifications were sought to be quashed in the writ petition which was dismissed by a learned Judge, The learned Judge rejected the argument that once a Vigilance Officer had been appointed to hold the enquiry and he found that there was no evidence to substantiate the charge, it was not permissible to appoint a Tribunal again to enquire into the same charge. Ex. P9 notification was therefore sustained. Regarding Ex P10, the learned Judge took the view that the challenge to the power to summon witnesses can be made in writ proceedings only by one who had locus standi to do so, viz. (1) who was being compelled to be a witness against himself is thereby violating the constitutional guarantee under Art.20(3) of the Constitution. As the appellant was not shown to be in that category, it was held that he had no locus standi to challenge Ext. P10 notification. Regarding this latter ground, it was freely admitted before us by Counsel for the appellant that he is not putting his case on the basis of Art.20(3) of the Constitution, and the Counsel for the Respondents did not raise any objection on the ground of the locus standi of the appellant. The first of the objections turns upon the provisions of the Kerala State Electricity Board Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations dated 31-1-1969 and the Kerala State Electricity Board (Employees Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Regulation.1969 also of the same date. Regulation.16(2) of the former Regulation provides:

(2.) We then turn to the attack against Ex. P 10. The same was issued under S.9(2) of the Kerala Enquiries and Summonses Act 1960. The argument was that this Act applies only to "public servants" and the employees under the Board such as the appellant, are not "public servants". The term 'public servant', according to the Counsel for the appellant is synonymous with the term 'Government servant'. S.9(2) of the Enquiries and Summonses Act is clear that it has application only in respect of enquiries into the conduct of any 'public servant.' The said Section reads:

(3.) Dictionaries were indented The Concise Oxford Dictionary at page 1158, dealing with the expression 'servant' refers to "public servants "as State Officials; Random's Dictionary was also cited to show that 'Public Servant' means one holding a Government Office One of the shades of meaning given in Webster's IIIrd Edition of New International Dictionary at page 1836 for 'public servant' is a private individual, Corporation or Company, rendering public service. One of the meanings given for 'public service' is 'Government employment'. From these, Counsel argued that both the dictionary meaning and the historical background of the Regulations would show that 'public servants' should be restricted to the category of Government servants. We cannot accede to this argument of Counsel. While Government servants may pass off as 'public servants', they would not exhaust the category of public servants Webster's Dictionary, itself sufficiently indicates the concept of the term 'public servant' when it refers to him as a private individual or a Corporation discharging a public function. The Kerala State Electricity Board discharges such public functions. We think, even in the dictionary sense, there is enough to regard it as engaged in 'public service' and its servants as 'public servants'.