G RAVINDRAN NAIR Vs. CHAIRMAN COCHIN PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who was an employee of the Cochin Port Trust since 1967 was kept under suspension from 28-2-1975 by the second respondent, the disciplinary authority who is the Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer, Central Accounts Department, Cochin Port Trust as per Ext. P1. The petitioner is a shroff in the Administration Section. Sri C. K. Ramankutty Menon, the 3rd respondent is a Senior Deputy Chief Accountant No. 1, Central Accounts Department, Cochin Port Trust. On 3-3-1975, the second respondent gave a first information statement Ext. P2 against the petitioner before the police.

(2.) ON 28-7-1975 disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under eight articles of charges for alleged misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 28,676. 79. The criminal case and the disciplinary proceedings proceeded simultaneously. The third respondent was appointed as enquiry officer in the disciplinary proceedings. On 9-61977 the second respondent issued show-cause notice to the petitioner. Exhibit P6 dated 27-6-1977 is the reply to the said notice. The petitioner challenged the show-cause notice before this Court in O. P. 2098 of 1977 without success. On 22-8-1977 the petitioner was dismissed from service by the 2nd respondent as per his order, Ext. P7. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal Ext. P7, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent, the Chairman of the Cochin Post Trust. When the appeal was pending before the 1st respondent, the Chief Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ernakulam before whom the criminal case against the petitioner was pending, acquitted him as per Ext. P9 judgment. The first respondent dismissed the appeal as per Ext. P11 order. This order is under challenge in this petition.

(3.) IN the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent, the history of the proceedings which culminated in the dismissal of the petitioner has been given in detail. The first respondent supports the order of dismissal as being one passed in conformity with the rules governing the matter. The allegations in the petition against the enquiry officer and the procedure adopted have been denied.