VASUDEVAN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT VIGILANCE B DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These cases have been referred to a Division Bench by a learned Judge of this Court stating that it was contended before him that all the questions raised in these cases have not been dealt with by the Full Bench in Xavier v. Kerala State Electricity Board (1979 KLT 80). Before us Counsel disowned having raised any such contention; and even if such a contention had been raised, we are unable to follow its effect and were not enlightened on that aspect.

(2.) O. P. No. 4242 of 1978. This original petition is to quash Ext. P3 order of the Government rejecting the petitioner's request to drop the disciplinary action against him, and Ext. P4 summons issued to the petitioner by the Enquiry Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings calling upon him to attend the office of the Tribunal to answer a charge against him. The petitioner, was a Conservator of Forests, against whom certain charges of irregularity and misconduct were framed in pursuance of the findings of the Justice Eradi Commission. The charge memo was dated 4 1 77. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence dated 30-7-1977. The Government passed Ext. P1 G.O. dated 11 9 1978 stating that the charge has to be proceeded with, by an enquiry under the Kerala Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) R.1960. Meanwhile the petitioner had retired on 31 7 1977. In answer to Ext. P1, the petitioner sent Ex. P2 explanation which was rejected by Ext. P3. Then followed Ext. P4.

(3.) The petitioner's case is that there is no power in the Government to continue the disciplinary proceedings after his retirement. On that basis he sought to quash Exts. P1, P3 and P4. Ext. P1 is dated 11-9-1978. It has set out the charges against the petitioner and in Para.2 has expressly noticed that as the petitioner had retired from the service the disciplinary proceedings against him would be deemed to be under R.3 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules. Ex. P1 also recited as item No. 2 therein the memo of charge dated 4-1-1977. It is clear from Ext. P1 that the disciplinary proceedings originally started as a full fledged one against the petitioner, were, since his retirement, treated as proceedings limited in scope and content to what is provided for by Part III of R.3 of the Kerala Service Rules. The said rule may well be quoted.