The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases governed by R.18, the principles of natural justice have to be followed, and consultation with the Public Service Commission is necessary in the case of dismissal of government servants.

1. A. Abdul Kaffar, the Petitioner in O.P. 14255 of 1993 and C.K. Bhagaval Das, the petitioner in O.P.No. 15625 of 1993 were holding the posts of the Sales tax Officer, Agricultural Income tax and Sales tax, Kollam and Additional Appellate Tribunal, Agricultural Income tax and Sales tax, Kozhikode respectively. Upon conviction for the offences under Ss.5(2) read with 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, each of them was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for six months, A. Abdul Kaffar, the Petitioner in O.P.14255/93 filed Criminal Appeal 281/93 and C.K. Bhagaval Das, the petitioner in O.P.15625/93 filed Criminal Appeal 299/93, before this court. On interlocutory applications made by them, the sentences imposed on them were suspended and they were released on bail.

The State of Kerala, the Respondent No.1 herein by order Nos. A8.49754/93/TX dated 5-8-1993 and G.O.(MS) No.122/93/TD dated August 4,1993 dismissed A. Abdul Kaffar and C.K. Bhagaval Das respectively. The petitioners impugn these orders.

2. The question is whether the Government in exercise of its authority under the second proviso to sub-article (2) of Art.311 of the Constitution of India and R.18 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules, 1960 is bound (i) to follow the principles of natural justice and (ii) consult the Public Service Commission before dismissing a government servant.

3. Article 311 of the Constitution of India enjoins that no member of a civil service of a State shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry i n which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. But, the first proviso stipulates that it shall not be necessary to give a second opportunity of making a representation against the penalty imposed. The second proviso to sub-article (2) of Art.311 of the Constitution of India lays down that the provision as to the inquiry and reasonable opportunity of being heard, in respect of the charges shall not apply, inter alia, where a person is dismissed, removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge. The present case falls under clause (a) of the second proviso to sub-Art.(2) of Art.311 of the Constitution. The Government was therefore right in proceeding under R.18 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules which, consistently with the second proviso to sub-article (2) of Art.311, lays down that the procedure under Rr.15,16 and 17 which prescribe the procedure for imposing the penalties need not be followed.

4. Learned Government Pleader Smt. Hemalata very strongly urged that in view of the conviction of the petitioners, the Government was within its authority in making the impugned orders. She rightly urged that the suspension of the sentences did not alter the petitioners' status as convicts. No doubt, the petitioners cannot be heard on the question whether they are guilty of the charge and as the learned Government Pleader Mrs. Hemalata urged, I must proceed on the basis that the petitioners are convicted for criminal charges. But, the question still remains whether even in cases falling under R.18, which does away with inquiry into the charges, the State Government is bound to observe principles of natural justice before imposing the penalty.

5. The thrust of the argument of Mrs. Hemalata is that in view of the undisputed conviction of the petitioners, such opportunity would make no difference to the result. This argument cannot be accepted. The argument that a man could not complain of the failure of natural justice unless he could show that he has been prejudiced by it or that an opportunity of being heard would have led to the same result, has been rejected by a long series of judicial opinions. In S.I. Kapoor v. Jagmohan and others (AIR 1981 SC 136), it has been held that "the principles of natural justi