THOBIAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Sub Inspector of Police who claims to have reaped several laurels to his credit (12 money rewards and 7 good service entries for meritorious service) has approached this Court with a prayer to quash an order by which his increments for two years nave been withheld with cumulative effect. That order (Ext. P2) has been passed by the DIG ( Central Range). The appeal filed before the Director General of Police did not yield any favourable result. Hence the Sub Inspector filed this Original Petition under art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) WHILE the petitioner was Sub Inspector of Peramangalam police Station, a bailable warrant of arrest was issued by a Judicial magistrate of the 1st Class for the arrest of one Sukumaran who was involved in a bailable offence. The Circle Inspector of Police, Trichur (Rural) tried to arrest that person on the strength of the said warrant, but failed in that endeavour. In the meanwhile, Sukumaran approached the Sessions Court, Trichur, with an application for an order of anticipatory bail, in which the said Circle inspector was made one of the respondents. The application was dismissed by the sessions Judge on 19-3-1985 as the Public Prosecutor informed that Sukumaran was wanted only in connection with the above bailable warrant. On the same day, the petitioner went to Sukumaran's residence to arrest him. WHILE the petitioner was in the house of Sukumaran, the Circle Inspector also came there, and at his sight Sukumaran made his escape good from the house. The Circle inspector took serious note of it and turned against the petitioner. The Circle inspector alleged that the petitioner helped Sukumaran to slip away from his residence. As the allegation was denied, the Dy. S. P. , Trichur conducted an enquiry into the allegation. In the enquiry the petitioner was found cot guilty of the allegation and a report was filed accordingly. But the third respondent (DIG) did not agree with the finding of the enquiry officer for certain reasons. Thereupon the DIG ordered that the increments of the petitioner be withheld with cumulative effect for a period of two years. That order is Ext. P2.

(3.) DUTY to act fairly in administrative exercises demands compliance with the principles of natural justice. When the executive action is subjected to judicial review, such action will normally be tested on the touchstone of principles of natural justice. It has now become an elementary principle of law, well settled as a result of several decisions of the Supreme court that no order involving adverse consequences can be passed against any person without giving him an opportunity to be heard before passing of such an order. "the audi alteram partem rule which mandates that no one shall be condemned unheard is one of the basic principles of natural justice" (Bhagwati, J- as he then was - in National Textile Worker's Union etc. v. P. R. Ramakrishnan and others (AIR 1983 SC 75 ). Merely because an opportunity is expressly provided in R. 17 of the Rules, it cannot be inferred that the principle of audi alteram partem is excluded by the Rules when lesser penalties are imposed. (Vide S. L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan and others (AIR 1981 SC 136) ).