SUBRAMANIAM C L Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition prays to quash the disciplinary proceedings taken against the petitioner terminating in Ex. P. 8 order of respondent 1 removing the petitioner from service.

(2.) EXHIBIT P. 1 dated 25 August 1963, issued by respondent 1, is the memorandum of charge together with the statement of allegations against the petitioner. The charge was that the petitioner, while functioning as Preventive Officer, grade II, Customs Office, Cochin, during the period from June 1962 up to 31 January 1963 contravened the provisions of Rule 12 (1) of the Central Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955 (referred to as the Conduct Rules for short ). The statement of allegations accompanying the charge stated that reply to letters dated 11 and 17 April 1962 from the petitioner, regarding the purchase and running of taxis by his wife, Smt. Brinda Lakshmi, the petitioner was informed by the Assistant Collector of Customs that no permission was necessary as the purchase was statedly to be financed by his wife's relatives, but that the petitioner should not canvass in support of his wife's business as enjoined by the explanation to Rule 12 (1) of the Conduct Rules. It was stated that in spite of the specific instructions thus issued, the petitioner had canvassed from several merchants daily having official dealings with the Customs House, for the taxi business of his wife, as could be seen from fifteen letters appended to the memorandum, copies of which were enclosed to the petitioner. An enquiry by respondent 2 into the charges commenced on 13 July 1963, and after examining certain witnesses, the petitioner submitted Ex. P. 2 statement dated 3 August 1963. The statement purports to be

(3.) THE petitioner replied to Ex, P. 3 memorandum by Ex. P. 4 statement dated 10 November 1963. The enquiry was continued and completed, and Ex. P. 5 is a copy of the enquiry officer's report. Exhibit P. 6 is the copy of the show cause notice, issued by respondent 1 to the petitioner against the proposed penalty of removal from service. This was inflicted by Ex. P. 3 order after considering Ex. P. 7 explanation submitted by the petitioner.