PADMANABHA PILLAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was a Revenue Inspector in the service of the Corporation of Trivandrum in 1953, was placed under suspension by the Commissioner of the Corporation on suspicion of irregularities in the collection of advertisement taxes. Ext. P1 dated 22-5-1953 is the order of suspension. This order was cancelled on 1-7-1953 pending final disposal of the enquiry against him. On the termination of enquiry, final orders were passed on 12-1-1954 acquitting him of the charges and cancelling the order of suspension. The period of suspension was converted into one of privilege leave with full pay and the matter was closed. Eighteen months later the Government directed the Examiner of Local Fund Accounts to hold a departmental enquiry into the same charges. Ext. P4 is the order of the Government dated 25th June, 1955. The Government also directed the Police to enquire into the matter and report. After receipt of the reports the Government directed the Commissioner of the Corporation to place the petitioner again under suspension pending fresh enquiry. On the basis of the reports of the Examiner of Local Fund Accounts and the Police, charges were framed against the petitioner regarding irregular use of advertisement tax seals of the Corporation with a view to misappropriation of Corporation revenue and also misappropriation of Corporation Revenue by falsification and complicity in alterations and falsifications thereby of the receipts issued from the Corporation for advertisement tax revenue, and the petitioner was called upon by order (Ext. P6) dated 30th May, 1956, to show cause why his service should not be dispensed with. He submitted his explanation on 4-6-1956 denying the charges. On 23-9-1957 a memo (Ext. P7) signed by the Mayor was served on him stating that he had been found guilty of the charges and asking him to show cause why he should not be asked to retire from service after a period of two years and three months of suspension commencing from 27-6-1955. The petitioner submitted his explanation on. 14-10-1957, and on 27-11-1957, the Mayor passed an order (Ext. P8), placing him under Suspension for two years and three months from 27-6-1955 arid treating him as retired from service on 27-9-1957. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Government but the same was dismissed on 15-4-1958 by order (Ext. P9). He has therefore preferred this petition under Art.226 and 227 of the Constitution to quash the order of the Mayor (Ext. P8) and the appellate order of Government of Kerala (Ext. P9) by a writ of eertiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order, on two grounds, namely, (I) that once having been found not guilty of the charges by the Mayor the second enquiry and the order of removal from service is invalid and (2) that the enquiry preceding the order (Ext. P8) is vitiated by contravention of principles of natural justice.

(2.) The first respondent is the State of Kerala. Though the State was represented at the final hearing, no counter affidavit has been filed. The second respondent, the Mayor, has filed a counter affidavit contending that the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Art.226 and 227, that he has other adequate remedies, that the enquiry was properly conducted and that the order is not liable to be quashed. When this petition came up for hearing I ordered that the Corporation be impleaded as additional third respondent. Sri. P. Govindan Nair, counsel for the second respondent appeared on behalf of the third respondent also.

(3.) The first point relied on by the petitioner is that the first decision of the Mayor acquitting him of the charges having become final, a second enquiry into the same charges was not warranted by City Municipal Act, IV of 1116 (Travancore). S.91 of the Act makes provision to punish the members of the staff of the Corporation, and it reads as follows: