RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition of the appellant directed against certain disciplinary, proceedings taken against him, resulting ultimately in Ex. P3 order terminating his services under R.20 of the Travancore - Cochin Panchayat R.1950.

(2.) The appellant was the Executive Officer, Thuravoor Panchayat. He was placed under suspension pending enquiry on 21 6 1973. On 28 8 1973 a memo containing eleven heads of charges was served on him. The first of these related to charge of misappropriation in respect of a sum of Rs. 1,000/-. The appellant submitted his explanation on 27-2-1973. On 27-2-1975 the Deputy Director of Panchayats proposed the imposition of certain major penalties against him in respect of charges Nos. 2 to 11. He left out charge No. 1 apparently because by that time the said charge was the subject matter of certain criminal proceedings in C. C. No. 3 of 1974 which was then pending. A memo of charge was served on the appellant to which he replied; and, by proceedings dated 6-8-1975, a penalty of stoppage of one increment was ordered which was also recovered from the appellant The criminal proceedings ended in a finding of guilt under S.409 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears from the record that he was released on probation under S.4 of the Probation of Offenders Act (although it was not explained how the said section was applied to an offence under S.409). On 6 8 1976 the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant were terminated and by Ext. P1 the appellant was reinstated on 17-11-1976. Ext. P2 notice dated 14-12-1976 was then issued to the appellant, stating that the Deputy Director of Panchayats had arrived at the provisional conclusion to treat the period spent under suspension as on leave without allowance. Thereafter by Ext. P3 proceedings of the Government, dated 7-2-1977 the services of the appellant were terminated. Ex. P3 referred to the termination of the criminal charge by the finding of guilt and the appellant's release on probation, and recorded:

(3.) The learned Judge who heard the writ petition dismissed it for the reason briefly stated that R.20 of the Rules (under the T. C. Panchayats Act 1950) had dispensed with the requirement of a show cause or an opportunity for explanation to the appellant and that he cannot therefore have any cause for grievance. The learned Judge derived support for this conclusion from the decision of the Supreme Court in The Divisional Personnel Officer Southern Railway & Another v. T. R. Challappan (AIR 1975 SC 2216).