MURALEEDHARAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent of all parties, both the Original Petition and the Writ Appeals were taken up for final disposal. Aggrieved by the order issued by that respondents in the Original Petition removing him from service solely for the reason that he was convicted in a criminal case, against which an appeal is pending and sentence suspended, the petitioner, B. Muraleedharan Nair, preferred the above original petition. The petitioner is the appellant in both the Writ Appeals. The appeals are preferred against interim orders passed by the learned single Judge in O. P. 16834 of 1997 filed by on Mr. K. Mohanan, who is the first respondent in both the Writ Appeals.

(2.) WHILE working as Sub Inspector of Police, Mannar Police Station, a private, complaint was filed against the petitioner before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chengannur alleging offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was numbered as CC 91 of 1992. The learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-Petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 1997 before the Additional Sessions Court, Mavelikkara and the said Court suspended the sentence until further orders under Ext. P1. Based on the conviction imposed on the petitioner, the Director General of Police, Trivandrum, by order dated March 26, 1997, dismissed the petitioner from service under Ext. P2. On the basis of Ext. P1, petitioner preferred a representation before the Director General of Police requesting him to reinstate the petitioner in service pending disposal of the appeal. By Ext. P3 order dated March 29, 1997, the Director General of Police reinstated the petitioner in service without prejudice to a further disciplinary action that may be taken against him subsequently. Pursuant to Ext. P3, petitioner was reinstated in service and was continuing as such.

(3.) ONE Mr. K. Mohanan, who was working as Scientific Assistant, was dismissed from service without conducting any enquiry on the mere fact that a conviction was imposed on him by a Criminal Court. He challenged his removal from service in O. P. 16834/1997. A learned single Judge of this Court, in C. M. P. 29992/1997, passed an order on October 20, 1997 directing the Secretary to Vigilance Department to file a counter affidavit explaining the policy adopted by the Government in the matter of allowing officers in service, against whom charges of corruption and embezzlement of Government money are proved, on the mere ground that appeals are pending. An affidavit was filed as directed by this Court. In the affidavit, a reference was made against the petitioner, Muraleedharan Nair. petitioner in OP 16834 of 1997, K. Mohanan, quoted the name of the petitioner in the present Original petition as an example in support of his case. Apprehending that action is likely to be taken against him based on the observation made by this Court, Muraleedharan Nair filed a petition for impleading and sought a clarification and direction not to take any action against him. This Court by order dated December 30, 1997, as an interim measure, directed the respondents not to take action for a period of two weeks. The stay was later vacated and CMP 41270 of 1997 was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, petitioner filed W. A. 231 of 1998 and the said appeal is also posted before us. Petitioner also filed W. A. 376 of 1998 against the order in CMP 29992 of 1997 in OP 16834 of 1997 and the same is also pending and posted before us for consideration along with OP 7288 of 1988. Since both the Writ Appeals are directed against the interim orders passed by this Court, we do not propose to deal with the appeals on merits and, therefore, we dismiss both the Writ Appeals subject to the decision in the main original petition.