STATE OF KERALA Vs. RANGANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the State challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P. No. 13195/95. The respondent herein was the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch CID, Kozhikode. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and Ext. P4 memo of charges was served on him. The respondent submitted a detailed explanation wherein he denied all allegations in the memo of charges. Initially there was a vigilance enquiry. That was followed by an oral enquiry as contemplated under the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1958 and Ext. P7 order was passed by the government. In Ext. P7, it was stated that while the respondent was working as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Malappuram, he sold a car to one M.C. Ahammedkutty who was a resident of that district, and thereby committed violation of R.24 of the Kerala Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1960 and a penalty of withholding of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect was imposed on the respondent.

(2.) The respondent challenged Ext. P7 on various grounds. He contended that he had no notice of any specific charge against him and that the imposition of penalty of withholding one year's increment had a cumulative effect and thus amounted to a major penalty and hence, a detailed enquiry ought to have been conducted after giving full opportunity to the respondent. The respondent had also contended that copy of the oral enquiry report was not furnished to him. Therefore, the procedure was vitiated in view of the decision of the Supreme Court.

(3.) The finding of the learned Single Judge is challenged by the State. We heard the learned Government Pleader and also the counsel who appeared for the respondent. The learned Government Pleader contended that the penalty imposed on the respondent was withholding of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect and that is a minor penalty. Therefore, no full-fledged enquiry was contemplated as per the provisions contained in the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules. The learned Single Judge relied on a decision reported in Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab (1991 Supple. (1) SCC 504) and held that even though the imposition of the penalty on the respondent was withholding of increment without cumulative effect, it had a cumulative effect and hence, it amounted to a major penalty. The learned Single Judge examined this matter in the factual background of the case. Ext. P7 order imposing the penalty on the respondent was passed on 26.6.1995. The due date for the next increment was on 1.7.1995. Because of the penalty the respondent did not acquire any increment on 1.7.1995. The next increment date was 1.7.1996. But by the time the respondent retired on 31.5.1996. As the respondent retired on 31.5.1996, he did not have the opportunity of acquiring the increment on 1.7.1996. This reduced the last pay drawn by him and it had also marginally affected his pension. In that view of the matter the learned Single Judge held that the impugned order of penalty had a cumulative effect. But we are unable to accept this view for the reason that in the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules, it is specifically stated that the withholding of increments or promotion is a minor penalty. The major penalties are classified under R.15(i), (j), (i), (1) and (m). They are the reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list or to the lower post or time scale, compulsory retirement, removal from service of the State Government or dismissal from service of the State Government. As the penalty imposed on the respondent does not come under any of this category and it comes only under R.15(1)(g), we can only hold that it is a minor penalty. Therefore, a full-fledged enquiry is not necessary and an oral enquiry will satisfy the rules provided under the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1958.