GOPALAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CAN retroactivity be ascribed to an order dismissing a Government servant, is one of the questions raised in this petition.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Grama Sevak by the State Government of 5-3-1957. The 2nd respondent, the District Collector, Calicut, by his order dated 14-8-1968 suspended the petitioner pending enquiry. The suspension was ordered under Rule 10 (1), of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 (C. C. and A Rules ). Charges were framed on 14-9-1964 and an enquiry was conducted. The petitioner was dismissed by the District Collector by his order dated 19-12-1969 (Ext. P2 ). This order was challenged in appeal before the Government and the Government by order dated 24-1-1975 (Ext. P3) set aside the order of the District Collector on the ground that the Collector who was not the appointing authority had no jurisdiction to dismiss the petitioner. The Government ordered that the petitioner was deemed to have continued under suspension with effect from 14-8-1963, that is, the date on which he was originally suspended by order of the District Collector, and directed that a fresh enquiry be held against him. Fresh charges were accordingly framed against the petitioner by Ext. P4 dated 18-2-1975, and an enquiry was conducted. The Government by order dated 8-61976 (Ext. P6) dismissed the petitioner from service with effect from 14-8-1963 and directed that a sum of Rs. 5,511. 85 be recovered from him being the loss sustained by the Government. A review of Ext. P6 sought by the petitioner was rejected by the Government by order dated 10-9-1976 (Ext. P8 ). Exhibits P3, P6 and P8 are challenged in this petition.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner, Shri Bhaskaran Nambiar, submits that the impugned orders are unsustainable for various reasons. He says that Ext. P6 is not reasonably supported by any legal evidence. He alternatively submits that Ext. P6 is invalid as it operates retrospectively. Counsel further submits that Ext. P3 is void insofar as it says that the petitioner is deemed to have continued under suspension with effect from 14-8-1963. I shall deal with the first submission last.