The judgment established the importance of complying with disciplinary rules, the requirement for evidence to support charges, and the necessity of framing clear and specific charges to provide a reasonable opportunity for defense.

S.K. Kader, J.

1. A work superintendent, working in the Public Works (Irrigation) Department, seeks to quash Ext. P5 order dated 15-1-1980 of the Government of Kerala, barring his two increments with cumulative effect. While the petitioner was working at Walayar Dam, he was in charge of Kallepully Canal, the water of which was used for irrigating paddy fields. There were complaints against him that he was demanding bribe from the cultivators for diverting water in the Kallepully Canal and also accepting bribe. Those who did not oblige him was denied water from the irrigation canal and as a result the crops in their paddy fields were destroyed. A case was registered on a complaint by the X Branch Police, Palghat against the petitioner and the Junior Engineer. After due enquiry, a report was submitted to the Government stating that it has been prima facie disclosed that the petitioner was guilty. Some how the case against the Junior Engineer was said to have been dropped. The Government framed three charges against the petitioner as stated in Ext. P1 and called for his explanation for the same. As the explanation given was found to be unsatisfactory, the matter was sent to the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings. The Tribunal examined the witnesses produced on either side and fully enquired into the matter. On the conclusion of the enquiry, the Tribunal found that charge No. 1 relating to the demand and acceptance of bribe by the petitioner has not been proved; but part of charges Nos. 2 and 3 have been proved. The Tribunal recommended a minor punishment of barring two increments of the petitioner with cumulative effect. Ext. P4 is the judgment of the Tribunal.

2. Thereafter, the Government on consideration of the report of the Tribunal accepted its finding and also the recommendation regarding punishment of barring two increments of the petitioner with cumulative effect.

3. Several grounds were urged by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner in support of this petition. The counsel contended that Ext. P5 is entirely vitiated by illegalities and also by violation of the principles of natural justice.

4. The main ground urged by the counsel was that there has been flagrant violation of the mandatory provisions of R.15(2) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1960 in as much as no notice was given proposing the punishment and asking for his explanation. In other words, a reasonable opportunity as contemplated under Art.311(2) of the Constitution was denied to his client. The other two grounds which he strongly urged are that there is absolutely no evidence in support of charge No. 2 and that charge No. 3 is as vague and indefinite as it could be and the whole trial has been thereby vitiated resulting in serious prejudice to the petitioner.

5. In support of his contention, that R.15 has been violated, the counsel relied on the decisions reported, Narayanan Nair v. State of Kerala (1970 KLJ 1069) Komthu v. Electricity Board (1971 KLT 780) and Surendra Sen v. Director of Survey and Land Records (1975 KLT 582). The counsel also relied on a decision reported in Afzal Ullah v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1964 SC 264) to show that this Court can definitely interfere even in proceedings of this nature and can enquire whether there is any evidence in support of the case. Reliance was placed on the decision reported in Surath Chandra v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1971 SC 752) to show that vagueness and indefiniteness of the charges vitiated the case.

6. I may say at once that there is no substance in the contention of the counsel that R.15 has been violated in this case. The decisions relied on in this regard do not apply to the facts of the instant case. In Narayanan Nair v. State of Kerala and another (1970 KLJ 1069) Eradi, J., as he then was, following a Division Bench ruling of the Rajasthan High Court in Kishun Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965 (2) LLJ 235) held that "it is now well settled