STATE OF KERALA Vs. A P JANARDHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point that arises for decision in this Writ Appeal is whether a Government servant could be dismissed with retrospective effect from the date he was suspended from service.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are the following: The respondents in the writ petition are the appellants. The respondent herein was the writ petitioner. He, while working as a Village Officer in Maire, Kasaragod, was accused of demanding a bribe of Rs.1000/- from the beneficiary of a Government scheme. A trap was laid by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Kasaragod and he was caught red handed while receiving Rs.500/-, out of the total amount of Rs.1000/-, demanded by him. On the basis of the report of the Vigilance Police, the respondent was kept under suspension, by order dated 01/06/1995. The suspension took effect from 02/06/1995. The respondent was served with a memo of charges on 03/07/1996. He submitted his written statement of defence. The Government referred the matter for enquiry to the Vigilance Tribunal, Kozhikode. The Tribunal submitted a report, finding him guilty and also recommending to award him the penalty of compulsory retirement, as provided under R.11(1)(vi) of Kerala Civil Services ( Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960. The Government finalised the disciplinary proceedings by Ext. P6 order dated 12/12/2000 and ordered that the respondent be compulsorily retired from service with effect from the date of suspension. The respondent challenged Ext. P6 by filing the writ petition, raising various grounds. The learned single Judge interfered with Ext. P6 to the extent it was given effect from the date of suspension, relying on the decision of this Court in Parappuram M.P. Coop. Society v. Dy. Director, Dept. of D.D., 1999 KHC 60 : 1999 (1) KLJ 322 : ILR 1999 (1) Ker. 671 : 1999 (1) KLT 121 (DB). It was ordered that the punishment will take effect only prospectively, that is, from 12/12/2000. The respondent was due to retire from service on 31/12/2000. As a result of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the punishment will not, practically, affect him. So, the learned Single Judge did not consider the other points raised in the writ petition. The respondent did not file any appeal also, as he was satisfied with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. But, the respondents in the writ petition have filed this appeal, contesting the finding of the learned Single Judge that the punishment cannot have any retrospective operation.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader Mr. K. Sandesh Raja, who appeared for the appellants submitted that the decision rendered by this Court in Parappuram M.P. Coop. Society's case cannot be made applicable to Government servants, as their service conditions are entirely different from that of the employees of Cooperative Societies. He further submitted that the rules contained in the Kerala Service Rules mention about imposition of the punishment of compulsory retirement with retrospective effect. Special reference was made to Note 6 to R.56B of Part I, K.S.R. The learned Government Pleader also relied on the decisions of this Court in Venkiteswaran v. State of Kerala, 1963 KHC 263 : 1963 KLT 1097 , Narayana Murthy v. State of Kerala, 1964 KHC 56 : 1964 KLJ 369 : ILR 1964 (1) Ker. 543 : 1964 KLT 180 and State of Kerala v. Gopalan, 1979 KHC 377 : 1979 KLN SN 105 : 1979 KLT 907 , in support of his submissions.