GOPINATHAN NAIR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was a Sub Inspector of Police in State service prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the order of the respondent, the State of Kerala, dismissing him from service and also for a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondent to treat the petitioner as still in service and to allow him his salary, other emoluments and benefits of service.

(2.) The facts necessary for the decision of the original petition may be briefly stated. The petitioner was the Sub Inspector of Police at Kayamkulam in November 1956. Following an enquiry into certain acts of misconduct alleged against him and two other police officers, he was dismissed from service by order (Ext. P1) dated 12-1-1959. The case against the petitioner was that on the night of 20th November 1956 he took a woman to the Government Rest House at Mavelikara for immoral purposes and that he spent the night there in the company of an Assistant Superintendent of Police and another Sub Inspector of Police who had brought two more women of easy virtue for similar purpose. The three officers are stated to have spent the night in a riotous manner drinking and causing disturbance to the other occupants of the Rest House. They left at 4 A.M. the next morning without making any entry in the register of the Rest House regarding occupation of the place, the previous night. Under instructions from the Inspector General of Police, the District Superintendent of Police, Quilon, conducted a preliminary enquiry into the matter. He examined a few witnesses and finding that a prima facie case was made out he framed charges against the three officers and issued notices to them asking them to show cause why they should not be punished for scandalous conduct unbecoming of police officers. Ext. P2 is the notice issued by him to the petitioner and it reads as follows:-

(3.) The main ground on which the petitioner relies is that he was not given reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action taken. The points raised in this connection are (1) that there was no fair enquiry and that principles of natural justice were violated, inasmuch as evidence recorded ex parte was the enquiry, (2) that the enquiry was not in conformity with Act XI (Travancore) or the later order of the Government of Travancore-