ORDER :- By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the validity of Ext. P-6, an order dated 24-1-1959, passed by the respondent, the Government of the State of Kerala removing him from service as a Sub-Inspector of Police. A petition of complaint against him for alleged misconduct, was presented to the then Minister for Law by one Radhamma, upon which, pending enquiry, he was suspended from service on 17-2-1958. Preliminary enquiries having been made thereon, Government ordered, by notification dated 7-3-1958. "a detailed departmental enquiry under the Kerala Civil Service (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957", which may be referred to hereafter as the Kerala Rules, to be held on the complaint for "indecent behaviour and misconduct on his part, and committed the enquiry to the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge who may be referred to hereafter as the Commissioner. Upon the complaint, the Commissioner framed a charge against the petitioner, the substance of which was, that after ascertaining that Radhammas husband was not at home on the evening of 7-2-1958; he entered her house on the pretext of questioning her on a matter pending before him in his official capacity, although she had been questioned previously, directed her brother who was in the house to remain in the verandah, entered the kitchen, talked indecently to her, touched her person, and when she was trying to escape, caught hold of her and restrained her and promised to put an end to her troubles if she acted as desired by him, and that he behaved in this manner with the intention of outraging her modesty.

The Commissioner issued summons. Ext. P-1 with the charge appended, to the petitioner, who filed his written statement of defence, and after enquiry, submitted to Government a report Ext. P-2, dated 12-5-1958, holding "the charge of misconduct" to be proved, and suggesting the petitioners "reversion to his next lower post for a particular period as contemplated by Rule 9 (iv)" of the Kerala Rules, as a suitable punishment. It is seen from the file of papers furnished to me by the learned Government Pleader, that by letter dated 29-7-1958, Government sought the opinion of the Public Service Commission, stating, that in their view, dismissal from service would be the proper punishment. By Ext. P-7, reply, dated 12-9-1958, the Public Service Commission agreed with the view of Government as to the punishment, upon which Ext. P-3, notice with a copy of Ext. P-2 appended was issued by Government on 11-10-1958, to the petitioner to show cause against the proposed punishment.

The petitioner submitted his reply Ext. P-4, upon which, suggesting that the punishment may be reduced to one of removal from service, Government again addressed the Public Service Commission on 26-12-1958, for its opinion, and the latter concurred in the modification proposed. Accordingly, the impugned order, Ext. P-6, was passed and on 21-2-1959 the Inspector-General of Police (General) intimated the petitioner by Ext. P-5, that he was removed from service with effect from 17-2-1958, the date on which he was suspended from service. The main contentions on behalf of the petitioner are three-fold, first that he was not afforded reasonable opportunity within the meaning of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution, of showing cause against his removal from service, second, that on receipt of the Commissioners report Government did not come to any finding as to his guilt, and third, that whatever conclusion Government arrived at had been induced by the Public Service Commission.

2. The first of the above contentions was really based on non-compliance with the provisions in Rule 17(2), of paragraph 1 of the Kerala Rules, which may be extracted below :

Rule 17(2). "In every case where it is proposed to impose on the member of a service any of the penalties specified in items (iv), (vii), (viii) and (ix) of Rule 9, the grounds on which it is proposed to take action s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document