KRISHNASWAMY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was a clerk in the State Transport Department was discharged from service by the first respondent, the State of Kerala, on 14-101958, and he has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that the said order as well as certain earlier orders relating to the matter be quashed.

(2.) The facts leading to the order of discharge may be stated : During February and March 1957, while the petitioner was working in the Ticket and Cash section of the Trivandrum City District Office of the Department, some concession tickets were found missing. The second respondent, the District Transport Officer, Trivandrum, reported the matter to the Director of Transport, the fourth respondent. The latter directed the second respondent to enquire into the matter and he also reported to the Government that he was deputing the second respondent to take necessary action. The petitioner was on leave at that time and he was asked to cancel his leave and appear before the second respondent. The petitioner accordingly appeared before him on 17-4-1957 when he was asked to offer his explanation regarding the charge against him, of which) copy was given to him. He was also placed under suspension pending the enquiry. The petitioner submitted a statement before the second respondent admitting the charges and offering to refund the sum of Rs. 182.03 which was the value of the missing tickets. He remitted Rs. 125/- on l8-4-1957 and the balance was appropriated from his salary for March 1957. The second respondent reported the result of the enquiry as well as the action taken, to the fourth respondent. The latter directed the second respondent to keep the petitioner under suspension and to forward the punishment roll. Pursuant to this, the second respondent gave another personal hearing to the petitioner on 25-4-1957 when also he admitted his guilt. The second respondent forwarded the punishment roll to the fourth respondent who held or the materials already gathered as well as a representation made to him by the petitioner on 2-5-1957, that the petitioner should be placed under suspension for one year from 12-41957, as punishment for misconduct. This order is Ext. P. 3 dated 67-1957. The fourth respondent reported to the Government regarding the action taken by him. The petitioner also submitted a representation to the Government on 13-11-1957. The Government felt that the punishment awarded was not proper as suspension was not one of the recognised punishments and that the petitioner's misconduct being a serious one a more deterrent punishment was necessary. Accordingly on 117-1-1958 the Government issued a notice, Ext. P5, to the petitioner asking him to show cause why he should not be reduced in rank by 37 places thereby reducing him as the juniormost clerk in the Department. On receipt of this, the petitioner submitted his explanation stating that in doing the act he was only a too] in the hands of the third respondent, the District Accountant, under whom he was working. The Government sought the opinion of the State Public Service Commission regarding the proposed punishment of reduction in rank. The commissioner's advice was that the petitioner on his admission was guilty of misappropriation of Government funds and that he should be dismissed from service. Thereupon the Government issued afresh notice, Ext. P7, dated 9-5-1958, asking the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner made a. submission similar to the earlier one, stating that he did the act at the instance of the third respondent and pleading for mercy. After considering his statement, the Government passed an order Ext. P9, on 14-10- 1958 discharging the petitioner from service.

(3.) Exts. P3, P6, P7 and P9 are sought to be quashed. Though the petitioner raised as many as 27 grounds in the petition, the three broad grounds pressed at the hearing were : (1) that the discharge of the petitioner from service contravened Article 311 of the Constitution, (2) that the enquiry was conducted contrary to the provisions of the Kerala Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, and (3) that some of the Rules of the Kerala Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules were ultra vires of the Constitution.