ANTONY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Original Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to Exts. P1 and P4 and to quash the same, issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service in terms of para. 17 of the Manual of Disciplinary Proceedings (Kerala)and for other reliefs. Petitioner is an Inspector of Police (SB CID ). While he was serving as Inspector of Police, Thodupuzha, the petitioner was placed under suspension as per Ext. P1 order dated 17. 9. 1997. In Ext. P1 it is stated that the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau had conducted a detailed enquiry into certain allegations against the petitioner when he was working at Irinjalakuda. THE enquiry disclosed that the petitioner had run a private unlicensed finance company in partnership with one Jose Pareppadan and thereby violated R. 48 (1)and R. 16 (1) (a) and (b) of the Kerala Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1960. It was in the above circumstances that the order of suspension was issued.

(2.) THEREAFTER, the petitioner was served with a memo of charges dated 8. 9. 1997 by the Additional Secretary, Vigilance (A) Department, thiruvananthapuram. The memo of charges stated the charges levelled against the petitioner. Petitioner was required to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him, as contemplated under the Kerala Police (departmental Inquiries, Punishment and appeal) Rules 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1958 ). Petitioner was given 15 days time from the date of the memo to put in his statement of defence. Petitioner was also required whether he desires to be heard in person. Along with the memo of charges, the petitioner was served with a statement of allegations and list of records.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In para. 2 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that vigilance enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and the enquiry had revealed that the petitioner had run a private unlicensed finance company in partnership with jose Pareppadan and thereby violated R. 48 (1) and R. 16 (1) (a) and (b) of the kerala Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1960. In Para. 3 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that after the petitioner was placed under suspension, the Government framed specific charges as Ext. P2 against the petitioner and obtained his written statement of defence. The written statement of defence was examined by Government with reference to the relevant records of the case. A personal hearing was given to the petitioner. Thereafter, the Government decided that the matter can be proceeded with and enquired into in detail by the Vigilance Tribunal under the Rules, 1958 and accordingly, the case was referred to the Vigilance Tribunal. Counter affidavit submits that the action referring the charges against the petitioner to the Vigilance Tribunal, is with jurisdiction.