S GOPALAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the petitioner in O. P. No. 2505 of 1965 from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court.

(2.) THE appellant, while he was working as a Block Development Officer at mavelikara, was placed under suspension by an order of the State Government dated 20-11-1957 pending investigation into two cases of misappropriation of money detected in his office. The case was investigated by the police, and the appellant and his Head Clerk were prosecuted for misappropriation of Government money. Both of them were convicted by the Special Judge who tried them; but the appellant's conviction was set aside by this Court in appeal by judgment dated 168-1960. Thereafter the appellant moved the Government for reinstating him in service? but the Government did not accede to his request. On the other hand, they started proceeding against the appellant under the Kerala Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1960 on charges of misappropriation of money and negligence of duty. Ext. P-1 dated 29-1-1962 is the memo of charges served on the appellant. The tribunal in its report, Ext. P-5 dated 18th November 1964, found that the appellant was not guilty of misappropriation; but he was guilty of gross negligence; and it recommended to the Government that the appellant be compulsorily retired from service. The report was duly considered by the government which accepted the finding of the Tribunal, The Government by their proceedings, Ext. P-9 dated 27th July 1965, ordered that the appellant be compulsorily retired from service with effect from the date on which he was placed under suspension. The Original Petition was filed to quash the aforesaid order of the Government. The appellant also claimed that, in any event, he could be removed from service only from the date of Ext. P-9, and not from 20-11-1957 on which date he was actually placed under suspension. This claim was put forward on the ground that the order of suspension ceased to exist with the termination of the criminal proceeding, which ended in the acquittal of the appellant by the High court, and that thereafter there was no order suspending the petitioner from service. The learned Single Judge rejected both the contentions and dismissed the original Petition.

(3.) THE appellant's learned counsel did not contend before us that Ext. P-9 should be quashed as a whole. He only contended that the direction in Ext. P-9 that the removal from service would take place with retrospective effect from the date of the appellant's suspension was illegal and should be quashed. Dealing with this contention, the learned Single Judge stated as follows:-