SUMANA N. MENON Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the applicant in OA No. 256 of 2005 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench.

(2.) THE petitioner was directly recruited under the Special Recruitment Scheme for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and appointed as Deputy Collector on training in the Land Revenue Department, as per notification dated 25/10/1982 issued by the Special Secretary to Government (Revenue), Government of Kerala. After (training and successful completion of probation, the petitioner was confirmed in the post of Deputy Collector with effect from 03/01/1987.

(3.) THE pleadings in the case disclose that during the relevant time disciplinary action against the petitioner was in contemplation and ultimately a memo of charges dated 26/10/1993 alleging misconduct in the discharge of her official duties was issued to the petitioner. In view of the disciplinary proceedings contemplated against the petitioner, the State Government withheld the integrity certificate and did not recommend her name to the Union Public Service Commission as required under Regulation 6 of the Regulations. The petitioner thereupon filed OA No. 1338 of 1993 in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench alleging that the integrity certificate was withheld improperly, resulting in denial of appointment to the Indian Administrative Service. OA No. 1338 of 1993 was rested on the contention that refusal of the integrity certificate should be based on the factual situation obtaining at the time of selection. By order passed on 10/11/1995 in OA No. 1338 of 1993 (copy of which is produced as Annexure A4 along with Ext. P1), the Central Administrative Tribunal held that: "Integrity certificate was withheld for valid reasons and respondents are free to take into account subsequent events, as integrity is not confined to the single moment, when the selection committee meets. Purity of public administration is of vital concern, for any society that sets its faith in the rule of law." The Central Administrative Tribunal further held thus: