ITTICHERIA M V Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by Mr. M. V. Itticheria, assistant engineer, in the service of respondent 1, State of Kerala, questioning the validity of certain disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.

(2.) THERE were certain irregularities alleged against the petitioner in connexion with the construction of a particular road in Trivandrum East Subdivision within his jurisdiction. Accordingly on 2 July 1957 Government placed him under suspension and on 21 November 1957 ordered a formal and public enquiry into the truth of the imputations under the Public Servants Enquiry Act XI of 1122. Section 2 of that Act contemplated only inquiries into imputations of misconduct as distinguished from irregularities. So on a writ motion by petitioner in O. P. No 24 of 1958, the High Court by order, dated 19 March 1958 quashed the inquiry. The order of suspension was on 25 June 1958 later quashed by the High Court in fresh writ motion by the petitioner in 0. P. No. 185 of 1958. Government since then passed order, dated 15 July 1958 directing an enquiry into the irregularities under the provisions of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, and also placed petitioner under suspension with effect from that date pending the enquiry. Copy of this order is filed as Ex. P. 1. Rule 17 (3) (iv) of the rules provides for the inquiry to be held by a special officer or tribunal appointed by the Government for the purpose. So by notification of the same day 15 July 1958, Government appointed respondent 2, Mr. P. D. Nandana Menon, Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Trivandrum to be the tribunal for the purpose of holding the inquiry. This notification is filed as Ex. P. 2. On 23 July 1958 respondent 2 apparently acting under Para. 1 of Rule 17 (2), communicated to the petitioner certain charges along with a statement of the allegations on which each charge was based and asked him to show cause why disciplinary action as contemplated by the rules should not be taken against him, granting him time till 26 July 1958 to file written statement of his defence and to state whether he desired to have an oral inquiry or only to be heard in person. Petitioner appeared before respondent 2 as directed on 26 July 1958 and took objection to his holding of the inquiry in the matter as proposed. The objection was rejected on 5 August 1958 but on 31july 1958 before yet the rejection was ordered, petitioner has come with the original petition herein praying for issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order to quash the proceeding ordering the inquiry as well as suspending the petitioner and all proceedings pursuant thereto.

(3.) VARIOUS grounds were raised by the petitioner in his affidavit in support of the petition but the main grounds pressed before me were three-fold, viz. ,