SOMASEKHARA MENON Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant before us had filed O.P. No. 2987 of 1977 before this court challenging the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him as per the orders evidenced by Exts. P1, P3 and P5 passed by the State Government and praying for the issuance of a writ of prohibition restraining the 2nd respondent the Director of Municipalities, Trivandrum from conducting the disciplinary enquiry against the appellant petitioner in pursuance of the directions contained in Exts. P1, P3 and P5. Our learned brother Vadakkel, J. before whom the original petition came up for preliminary hearing at the admission stage disposed it of finally after recording certain assurances given to the court by the law and Liaison Officer who took notice on behalf of the respondents. The appellant contends that the impugned proceedings are totally illegal and without jurisdiction and that they ought to have been quashed by the learned single Judge.

(2.) The appellant who will hereafter be referred to as the writ petitioner, was employed in the service of the State

(3.) On receipt of Ext. P3 the petitioner again made a detailed representation to the State Government as per Ext. P4 dated 31st May 1977 reiterating his contention that the Government had no jurisdiction to order a disciplinary enquiry to be conducted against the petitioner under R.15(2)(b)(iv) since the petitioner had retired and was no longer in the service of the Government. Without prejudice to the aforesaid contention the petitioner also submitted in Ext. P4 that the Director of Municipalities who had been empowered to conduct the enquiry was very much prejudiced against the petitioner for certain personal reasons and that the petitioner bona fide feared that he would not have a just and impartial enquiry from the said officer. In reply to Ext. P4 the petitioner was informed by the Special Secretary to Government, Local Administration and Social Welfare Department as per the communication Ext. P5 dated 20th July 1977 that the Government saw no reason to allow the petitioner's request and that the orders issued in Ext. P3 will stand. It is after receipt of Ext. P5 informing the petitioner about the Government's decision to continue the disciplinary proceedings against him that the petitioner came up to this court seeking the relief aforementioned.