The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of complying with the procedural requirements of R.15 of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, ensuring the delinquent officer's effective participation in the inquiry and the obligation to consult the Public Service Commission. Non-compliance with these requirements renders the penalty order invalid.

1. This is one of the cases where the obstinancy of the State in refusing to see a reason is likely to cost it too dearly. The Assistant Commissioner of Excise, Palghat, placed the Petitioner, who was a Preventive Officer, under suspension by Ext. P1 order dated 20-1-1970. The allegations against him were serious. They included misappropriation of considerable amounts entrusted to him and falsification of records to cover up such misappropriation. The Assistant Commissioner stated in Ext. P1 order, that a preliminary enquiry was conducted and that disclosed prima facie case against the petitioner. He was prosecuted in C. C. Nos. 96 and 97 of 1972. Petitioner managed to escape conviction on technical grounds and on the basis of benefit of doubt. The Additional First Class Magistrate, Malappuram, however, had occasion to observe that his conduct was not above board and that a disciplinary action was called for. The acquittal was in 1973.

2. Petitioner requested for reinstatement in service after acquittal. But, the second respondent-Board of Revenue, ordered the Deputy Commissioner, Excise, Northern Range, Kozhikode to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner under R.15 (a) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 in its order No. Vig (X)-15655/73 dated 12-11-1975. Nothing much was done by that enquiry officer. The Board of Revenue, thereafter, passed Ext. P12 order dated 20-10-1978, appointing the Deputy Commissioner (Enforcement and Intelligence), Trivandrum to conduct the enquiry, without framing any charge against the petitioner, the enquiry officer examined six witnesses, two each on 17-5-1979,18-5-1979 and 4-10-1979. Thereafter the enquiry officer framed Ext. P2 memo of charges dated 19-11-1979. He required the petitioner to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him under the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules. Petitioner submitted Ext. P3 explanations. He naturally denied the charges. After making his submissions on merits, he stated as follows:

"If necessary I may be allowed to produce all the re levant records. The set of the records including the judgment were produced already along with the explanation submitted before the Assistant Excise Commissioner, Malappuram, that may kindly be treated as the records in this proceedings also. I will produce all my records at the time of hearing".

No further enquiry into the charges were conducted. No witnesses were examined thereafter. Nor was the petitioner allowed an opportunity of producing any evidence in his defence. The enquiry officer submitted his report, obviously with reference to the evidence as collected prior to the issue of Ext. P2 memo of charges. The Board of Revenue then issued Ext. P4 show cause memo dated 17-5-1981, informing the petitioner that the enquiry officer has reported that though the main charge of misappropriate ion of Government money was not proved, charges Nos: 12 to 16 of temporary misappropriation of Government money and fabrication of Government records were proved. The Board informed the petitioner, that it did not agree with the enquiry officer and also that it had tentatively decided to retire the petitioner from service compulsorily from the date of his suspension. He was allowed 30 days' time to submit his explanations. Petitioner submitted Ext. P5 reply to the show cause notice. He stated specifically that no enquiry was conducted after framing the charge, that all the witnesses were examined prior thereto and that none of them rendered any evidence in support of the charges. He also referred to the inordinate delay in completing the proceedings after his suspension ten years ago. The Board of Revenue, without adverting to the specific contention which the petitioner had raised viz., that no enquiry was conducted after Ext. P2 charges were framed, found him guilty of the charges and imposed on him the penalty of compulsory retirement with effect from the date o