The main legal point established in the judgment is that for imposing a major penalty, R.15(1) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960, makes it obligatory to conduct an enquiry in the presence of the delinquent officer, providing the delinquent officer with a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The absence of such an enquiry prejudiced the appellant and led to the quashing of the order imposing the penalty.

1. This is an appeal from a judgment of a learned single judge in a writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing an order passed by the Kerala State Electricity Board reducing him in rank as a Grade I Overseer.

2. The facts of the case may be stated as follows: The appellant was a Junior Engineer (Electrical), Chavara. A sum of Rs. 3186.81 collected by the Cashier, Sri Ramakrishna Pillai, on 191 1966 was entrusted with the peon Sri Divakaran on 20-1-1966 for remittance to the Treasury. A further sum of Rs. 5,611.66 received on 5-2-1966 was also entrusted with the same peon on 7 21966 for remittance to the treasury. These amounts were misappropriated by the peon. C C. No. 88 of 1966 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Karunagappally, was filed against the peon Divakaran and the Cashier Ramakrishna Pillai as 1st and 2nd accused respectively. The magistrate while acquitting the Cashier convicted the peon. The appellant was examined as Pw.l in the case and his conduct in not making effective supervision was adversely commented upon by the magistrate in the judgment. The appellant's case was that he came to know about the transaction of receipt of the two amounts and their non-remittance into the treasury only on 29-4-1966 after he got intimation from the Deputy Chief Accountant. The magistrate did not believe the case of the appellant. He referred to the statement of the 2nd accused that he had brought the matter on several occasions to the notice of the appellant that the 1st accused had not produced the chalan receipts for the amounts, but that the appellant on these occasions told him that there was no need for worry as the peon was honest and trustworthy. The 2nd accused also stated that the appellant had finally addressed the Sub Treasury Officer, Karunagappally, for a certificate of remittance on 26 21966 and that the said correspondence was in file No. R. C. 4/63 dated 26-2-1966. The appellant was summoned to produce the file in R.C. 4/63 before the Magistrate's Court and, on production, it was found that sheet No 35 on which reliance was placed, was missing and that in its place sheet No. 35 of R. C. 8/65 was substituted. In the light of the evidence of the witnesses examined in the case, especially of pw. 3 who deposed to having seen file R.C. 4/63 before its production in court and sheet No. 35 as the carbon copy of a letter dated 26 61965 by the appellant to the Sub Treasury Officer, the magistrate concluded that the appellant purposely and dishonestly removed sheet No. 35 from R.C. 4/63 and substituted sheet No.35 of R.C. 8/65 in order to fit in with his prior assertion that he came to know of the transactions only on 29-4-1965.

3. On the basis of these circumstances two charges were laid against the appellant, namely, dereliction of duty and misconduct. Ext, P1 dated 29-3-1967 is a copy of the charges and along with that a statement of allegations was also served on the appellant and he was called upon to state whether he desired to be heard in person. He was also permitted to peruse the relevant records mentioned in the statement of allegations and to take down extracts from the relevant records to prepare his written statement. The statement of allegations referred to the judgment in C. C. 88/1966, and in particular, to the relevant paragraphs therein dealing with the conduct of the appellant. The appellant filed Ext. P-2 written statement of defence. Thereafter Ext. P-3 show-cause notice was issued by the Board proposing to impose the punishment of reduction in rank and calling upon the appellant to submit his explanations against the proposed punishment. Ext. P-3 (a) and P-3 (b) are copies of the enquiry reports of the Chief Engineer (Electricity) enclosed along with Ext. P-3. The explanation submitted by the appellant is Ext. P-4. After considering the explanation the Board passed Ext. P-5 order reducing the appellant to the lower grade of Grade I Overseer for a period of one year