KALIDAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is one of the cases where the obstinancy of the State in refusing to see a reason is likely to cost it too dearly. The Assistant Commissioner of Excise, Palghat, placed the Petitioner, who was a Preventive Officer, under suspension by Ext. P1 order dated 20-1-1970. The allegations against him were serious. They included misappropriation of considerable amounts entrusted to him and falsification of records to cover up such misappropriation. The Assistant Commissioner stated in Ext. P1 order, that a preliminary enquiry was conducted and that disclosed prima facie case against the petitioner. He was prosecuted in C. C. Nos. 96 and 97 of 1972. Petitioner managed to escape conviction on technical grounds and on the basis of benefit of doubt. The Additional First Class Magistrate, Malappuram, however, had occasion to observe that his conduct was not above board and that a disciplinary action was called for. The acquittal was in 1973 .

(2.) Petitioner requested for reinstatement in service after acquittal. But, the second respondent Board of Revenue, ordered the Deputy Commissioner, Excise, Northern Range, Kozhikode to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner under R.15 (a) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 in its order No. Vig (X)-15655/73 dated 12-11-1975. Nothing much was done by that enquiry officer. The Board of Revenue, thereafter, passed Ext. P12 order dated 20-10-1978, appointing the Deputy Commissioner (Enforcement and Intelligence), Trivandrum to conduct the enquiry, without framing any charge against the petitioner, the enquiry officer examined six witnesses, two each on 17-5-1979, 18-5-1979 and 4-10-1979. Thereafter the enquiry officer framed Ext. P2 memo of charges dated 19-11-1979. He required the petitioner to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him under the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules. Petitioner submitted Ext. P3 explanations. He naturally denied the charges. After making his submissions on merits, he stated as follows:

(3.) The grounds which he urged are, that there ought to have been an enquiry, after the charges were framed, as is enjoined by R.15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, after the disciplinary authority framed charges against the Government servant. Petitioner submits, that no such enquiry was conducted. The procedural requirements of an enquiry leading to the imposition of a major penalty have not been complied with in this case. He asserts, that there was no presenting officer. The enquiry officer himself assumed the role of the prosecutor and the judge. After examining witnesses, without framing any charge, he framed Ext. P2 memorandum of charges on his own instead of submitting a report of enquiry to the Government. Counsel submits, that the petitioner had requested that he may be given an opportunity of adducing evidence. He had also requested for a personal hearing. Neither was granted, and he submitted his report, assuming that the requirements of the rules were satisfied because he had taken evidence prior to the framing of the charge.