BALAKRISNA PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner during the material time was a Subject matter Specialist (Agronomy ). He and a colleague of his, Sri Bhaskara Kurup, were placed under suspension by G O E T No. 1059/73/ad. dated 5 5 1973. This was followed by Ext. P-1 memorandum of charges dated 7 91973 with the statement of allegations attached thereto. Ext. P-2 is the copy of the answer to the memorandum of charges and statement of allegations, submitted by the petitioner on 3-1-1974 to the second respondent, the Director of Agriculture, Trivandrum . THE second respondent accepting the finding of the Joint Director of Agriculture, Trivandrum , who enquired into the charges levelled against the petitioner, passed Ext. P3 order dated 7-12-1974 stopping the next increment of the petitioner for one year with cumulative effect. Ext P-4 is the copy of the memorandum of appeal filed by the petitioner on 5-2-1975; and Ext. P-5 is order No. G. O. Rt. 3128/75/ad dated 11-11-1975 passed by the first respondent, the Government of Kerala, disposing of Ext. P-4 appeal, confirming Ext. P-3 order passed by the second respondent. It is aggrieved by Exts. P-3 and P-5 orders that this writ petition under art. 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioner.

(2.) SRI C. M. Kuruvilla, the counsel for the petitioner, attacked Ext. P-3 order on two grounds: (i) the petitioner's request for allowing him to engage a lawyer at the enquiry was rejected by the enquiry officer without applying his mind as to whether he should or he should not exercise the discretion vested in him in that regard; and (2) a copy of the enquiry report was not furnished by the second respondent to the petitioner before the passing of Ext. P-3 order.