The broad interpretation of the term 'public servant' in the context of preserving the integrity of public servants and preventing bribery and corruption.

1. The appellant was a clerk under the Kerala State Electricity Board and the President of the Trade Union, representing the workers of the Idikki Project. In connection with a strike in February 1969 and certain disturbances consequent on the same, a criminal case under Ss 129-B, 147,149,307, 332 etc. of the IPC. was charged against him and others; but following the report of a District Judge as Commission of Enquiry, the case was withdrawn. Shortly thereafter proceedings were instituted against the appellant under the Kerala State Electricity Board (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1969 and the Vigilance Officer of the Board was appointed Special Officer to hold the enquiry under Regulation.16 of the Regulations. The Officer informed the Board that the enquiry may be held by some authority

empowered to summon witnesses. By Ext. P9 G. O., the Government (1st Respondent) referred the case to the 3rd Respondent, the Commissioner and Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings. This was followed by Ext. P10 notification under S 9(2) of the Kerala Enquiries and Summonses Act 1960, investing the Tribunal with the powers of the Civil Court to summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses etc. These two notifications were sought to be quashed in the writ petition which was dismissed by a learned Judge, The learned judge rejected the argument that once a Vigilance Officer had been appointed to hold the enquiry and he found that there was no evidence to substantiate the charge, it was not permissible to appoint a Tribunal again to enquire into the same charge. Ex. P9 notification was therefore sustained. Regarding Ex P10, the learned judge took the view that the challenge to the power to summon witnesses can be made in writ proceedings only by one who had locus standi to do so, viz. (1) who was being compelled to be a witness against himself is thereby violating the constitutional guarantee under Art.20 (3) of the Constitution. As the appellant was not shown to be in that category, it was held that he had no locus standi to challenge Ext. P10 notification. Regarding this latter ground, it was freely admitted before us by Counsel for the appellant that he is not putting his case on the basis of Art.20 (3) of the Constitution, and the Counsel for the Respondents did not raise any objection on the ground of the locus standi of the appellant. The first of the objections turns upon the provisions of the Kerala State Electricity Board Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations dated 3111969 and the Kerala State Electricity Board (Employees Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Regulation.1969 also of the same date. Regulation.16 (2) of the former Regulation provides:

16. (2) The formal enquiry may be conducted by:

(i) The Government through its machinery set up for conducting such enquiries provided the Board requests Government in writing so to do.

(ii) The Board or the appointing authority.

(iii) The disciplinary authority under the Board if that authority is competent under these regulations.

(iv) The Head of the Department or any Officer of the Department empowered by the appointing authority or the Head of the Department; or

NOTE; For this purpose the respective Chief Engineers, Secretary or Chief Accounts Officer under whom the incumbent is working shall be deemed the heads of the respective departments.

(v) A Special Officer or tribunal appointed by the Government or the Board for the purpose or a Tribunal generally appointed by Government for making enquiries into the conduct of Government Servants."

There is nothing in the above provision to hold that the option once exercised by the Government for any one of the modes of enquiry would for ever foreclose it from shifting to any of the other authorised modes. This is particularly emphasised by the opening words of the clause that we have quoted, making it possible that any of the authorities may conduct the formal enquiry. It was then said that in any eve