Back
1995 Supreme(Ker) 349
Judges : K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
Sreekumar - Appellant
Versus
Kerala Water Authority - Respondent
Case No : O.P. No. 1794 of 1995
Decided On : 12/12/1995
Advocates Appeared :
K. Gopalakrishna Kurup For Petitioner Babu Varghese For Respondents
The decision to suspend a government servant should be based on the gravity of the alleged misconduct and the nature of the evidence, and prolonged suspension without concluding the inquiry can have an injurious impact on the government servant.
Headnote:
Suspension - Government Servant - Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules - S.5(2) read with S.5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Sections 403, 409 and 477(A) of the IPC - State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, (1994) 4 SCC 126 - O. P. Gupta v. Union of India, A. I. R.1987 SC 2257
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Lower Division Clerk at the Kerala Water Authority, was suspended based on a criminal case registered against him. The petitioner challenged the validity of the suspension order, arguing that it was not mandatory to suspend him merely because of the criminal case.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the suspension order lacked justification as the Vigilance Department only recommended the transfer of the petitioner for a fair investigation, not suspension. The Court quashed the suspension order and directed the reinstatement of the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was whether the suspension of the petitioner was justified under the Kerala Civil Services Rules and relevant legal provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that the decision to suspend a government servant should be based on the gravity of the alleged misconduct and the nature of the evidence, as per the State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty case. It also highlighted the injurious impact of prolonged suspension without concluding the inquiry, as per the O. P. Gupta v. Union of India case.
Final Decision: The Original Petition was allowed, quashing the suspension order and directing the reinstatement of the petitioner.
Petitioner is a Lower Division Clerk now working at the Mechanical Division, Kerala Water Authority at Palarivattom. He was placed under suspension by Ext. P9 order dated 27.10.1995 based on a Government Letter No. 39345/F2/95/LAD dated 14.9.1995. By the above mentioned letter, the Government directed the Kerala Water Authority to place the petitioner under suspension, since a criminal case has been registered against him. The Kerala Water Authority immediately responded and passed Ext. P9 order under Rule 10(i) (b) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules, placing the petitioner under suspension pending detailed investigation by the Vigilance Department. Petitioner challenges the validity of the said order contending that it is not mandatory on the part of the respondents to suspend the petitioner merely because a criminal case has been registered against him by the Vigilance Department.
2. While working as Lower Division Clerk in the Office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Water Works Sub Division, petitioner was placed under suspension by Ext. P1 order dated 19.8.1988. The charge levelled against the petitioner was that while he was working as Lower Division Clerk he made a short remittance of Rs. 1000/-. It was revealed that the total collection was Rs. 1735/-. It is on the basis of the above mentioned charge that he was suspended. According to the respondents, it was also revealed that petitioner had misappropriated an amount of Rs. 6,160/-. However, the said amount was remitted by the petitioner on 18.8.1988. A further detailed audit was conducted by the Internal Audit Wing of the Kerala Water Authority and as per their report, the total amount misappropriated by the petitioner was assessed to Rs.55,853.80. Even after a lapse of more than 21/2 years no steps were taken to complete the disciplinary proceedings. Consequently, petitioner approached this Court and filed O.P. No, 4182 of 1991. The Original Petition was disposed of by mis Court on 10.4.1991 directing the respondents to complete the disciplinary proceedings on or before 15.7.1991 failing which it was ordered that petitioner would he reinstated in service without prejudice to (he continuance of the disciplinary proceedings. It is stated that the second respondent vide his letter No. 9753/88/WAS/Vig. dated 2.5.1991 had addressed the petitioner to remit Rs. 58,853.80 within a period of seven days, subject to finalisation of the actual' amount of loss sustained by the Authority, and without prejudice to the 'disciplinary action and detailed enquiry. The disciplinary proceedings were not finalised and consequently on the basis of the judgment of this court in
6. P. No. 4182 of 1991, petitioner was reinstated in service by Ext. P3 order dated 15.7.1991.
3. The Managing Director of the Kerala Water Authority vide his letter No. KWA7 HO/E6/14859/90 dated 12/91 had addressed the Director of Vigilance for a detailed investigation of the case. In the meantime, petitioner remitted an amount of Rs. 55,6487 - on 7.3.1995, with a request to drop the disciplinary proceedings. The Chief Engineer reported that major portion of the loss has already been recouped with the remittance of money by the petitioner. The outstanding amount is Rs. 1589/- and this is related to the alleged irregularities on the part of another person. However, since the misappropriated amount is, more than Rs. 10,000/- the case was referred to the Director of Vigilance Investigation through Government and the case is under the detailed investigation of the Vigilance Department. It is under the above mentioned circumstances, the Government vide letter dated 14.9.1995 directed the Water Authority to place the petitioner under suspension since a criminal case is registered against him.
4. The charge levelled against the petitioner was with respect to the incident which happened in the year 1988. This Court directed the respondents to complete the disciplinary proceed
