MOHAMMED IQBAL Vs. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a Forest Guard and he was suspended as per Ext. P1 order dated 17.10.1995. The allegations in Ext. P1 are that he was elected as State Secretary of the Kerala Pradesh Civil Liberty Centre. The above organisation is a pro CPI (ML) extremist organisation having leanings to the Peoples War Group of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the petitioner was suspended pending formal enquiry under Kerala Civil Service (CC & A) Rules. Thereafter the petitioner was served with Ext. P2 show cause notice. To Ext. P2, the petitioner filed Ext. P3 explanation dated 15.5.1996. But no action was taken on the above explanation. Therefore, the petitioner filed O.P.No. 19681/96 before this Court. This court by judgment dated 16.12.1996 directed respondents 1 and 2 to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Accordingly Ext. P5 reply was given to the petitioner. In Ext. P5 apart from reiterating the very same allegations in Ext. P1 order of suspension, it was also stated that the petitioner reportedly visited Andhra Pradesh on March 3, 1989 on invitation from Dr. Balagopal. It is also stated that K.G. Kannabiran of Andhra Pradesh, Senior Advocate, President of the Peoples Union of Civil Liberties in a letter dated 22nd October, 1995 demanded the Chief Minister of Kerala to revoke the suspension order of the petitioner. These are the reasons stated by the first respondent to reject the request of the petitioner for reinstatement.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent. The statements contained in Exts. P1 and P5 have been repeated in the counter affidavit. There is a statement that the allegations are serious in nature affecting the security of the State and the matter has to be consulted with higher authorities before issuing memo of charges. Hence draft memo of charges are already prepared and forwarded to the second respondent for approval. On getting approval from the second respondent, memo of charges will be issued shortly. It is interesting to point out that absolutely no details have been given relating to the date of preparation of the draft memo of charges and forwarding the same to the second respondent for approval. No counter affidavit has been filed either by the first respondent or by the second respondent. Therefore it is not possible to believe the statements in the counter affidavit that draft memo of charges has been prepared and it will be issued shortly. Now it is more than two years that the petitioner has been kept under suspension. No attempt has been made by the respondents to serve the memo of charges on the petitioner so far. This Court had occasion to consider the legality of continuance of suspension for an indefinite period in the ruling reported in Haridas v. District Judge ( 1993 (2) KLT 297 ). In that case, the petitioner was accused in a criminal case and he was suspended pending investigation of the criminal case. In that context this Court held that indefinite suspension of the civil servant besides stigmatising him to a great extent has the super added disability and the pernicious effect of demoralising him to a great extent even when he is reinstated which cuts at the very root of the efficiency of civil service. In that judgment the Division Bench has quoted a ruling of the Madras High Court reported in State of Madras v. K.A. Joseph ( AIR 1970 Mad. 155 ), with approval. In that ruling it was held that there is a very clear and distinct principle of natural justice that an officer is entitled to ask if he is suspended from his office because of grave averments or grave reports of misconduct, that the matter should be investigated with reasonable diligence and that charges should be framed against him within a reasonable period of time. Otherwise it would imply that the executive is being vested with a total arbitrary and unfettered power of placing its officers under disability and distress for an indefinite duration. In that case the Division Bench of the Madras High Court was dealing with a situation where the petitioner therein was placed under suspension only for a period of ten months.

(3.) Under these circumstances I think that the continuity of suspension of the petitioner for more than 2 years is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory.