SURESH BABU M S Vs. CHAIRMAN RUBBER BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant while working as Field Officer of the Rubber Board was placed under suspension by the Chairman of the Rubber Board under sub-rule(i)(e) of Rule 8 of the Rubber Board Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1961 by order dated March 17, 1988. Following are the charges levelled against the appellant: Shri M.S. Suresh Babu, while functioning as Field Officer, Rubber Board Field Office, Vazhakulam during the period between June, 1985 and March, 1988, failed to maintain integrity and devotion to duty in as much as he disobeyed the orders/directions/instructions of his controlling officer/superiors in regard to work, conduct, submission of inspection reports and tour reports and unauthorisedly absented himself from duty from December 1,1987 to December 16, 1987 from January 1, 1988 to February 12, 1988 from February 17, 1988 to March 5, 1988 and from March 7, 1988 to March 15, 1988 in violation of the rules/orders in force. And that Shri Suresh Babu with ulterior motive to obtain illegal gratification from Shri Chacko Mani, applicant in PDA/MV/1998/87 called him to the Vazhakulam Field Office after inspecting the plantation and in pursuance thereof he received from Shri Chacko Mani a sum of Rs. 200/- in October, 1987. And that Shri Suresh Babu in order to cause undue hardship to rubber growers coming under the jurisdiction of Vazhakulam Field Office, failed to submit 107 inspection reports against specific directions/ instructions and failed to hand over 410 number of cases/files while handing over the charge of the Field Office, Vazhakulam to Smt. Rosamma Paul, Jr. Field Officer on April 5, 1988. By his above acts, Shri M.S. Suresh Babu violated Rule 3 of the Rubber Board Employees Conduct Rules. An Enquiry Officer was appointed who found two of the three charges proved.

(2.) Report of the Enquiry Officer was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. It was provisionally decided to impose a punishment of removal of the appellant from service. Prior to that appellant was given an opportunity of being heard. He filed objections. Objections were considered by the first respondent who passed Ext. P. 19. First respondent found that the appellant deserves punishment of removal from service. However, taking into consideration all relevant facts and taking a lenient view it was decided to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement on the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant has filed the writ petition. Learned single Judge after considering the entire matter found no merits in the case of the appellant and the writ petition was dismissed, against which this appeal has been preferred.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the Enquiry Officer as well as the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement. According to the counsel there is no proper application of mind by the authorities. He further submitted that the Enquiry Officer took note of irrelevant materials to conclude that the charges levelled against the appellant were proved.