BABU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner before this Court is the Deputy Director of Training, Directorate of Industrial Training, Trivandrum. He was working as Inspector of Training, Quilon during the period from September 3, 1984 to February 28, 1989. While working as Deputy Director of Training certain allegations were levelled against him as per memo of charges dated December 6, 1989. Ext. P1 is the copy of the memo of charges issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government. The allegations contained in Ext. P1 were denied as per Ext. P2 reply submitted by the petitioner on January 24, 1990. Thereafter Government passed Ext. P3 order on June 29, 1991 imposing penalty of withholding the increment for three years from August 1, 1991 without cumulative effect. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) THE main contention advanced by the petitioner is that before imposing the penalty of withholding increment he had not been granted an opportunity to make representation against such proposal. His case is that under Rule 16 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (for short 'the Rules') an order imposing any of the penalties specified in items (i) to (iv) of Rule 11 (1) shall be passed only after the Government servant is informed in writing the nature of the penalty proposed to be taken against him and given opportunity to make any representation against such penalty. He also points out that while passing Ext. P3 order Government have violated the principles of natural justice. The Government Pleader on the other hand submitted that the petitioner had been given an opportunity to explain the charges levelled against him as per Ext. P1 memo of charges and he was not entitled to any further opportunity at the time of imposing the punishment. She further adds, the petitioner in pursuance of the said charge memo has filed Ext. P2 representation. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent also points out that the petitioner was given an opportunity to make his representation as per Ext. Pl memo.

(3.) THE question which requires to be decided is whether the petitioner is entitled to a further opportunity to make his representation against the penalty proposed to be imposed on him.