SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(Ker) 644

High Court of Kerala
B.N. Patnaik, J.
Abdul Khader - Appellant
Versus
Director Civil Supplies Department - Respondent
O.P. No. 9185 of 1991
Decided On : 26-06-1998

Consultation with the Public Service Commission is necessary only for original orders imposing major penalties by the Government, and delay in disciplinary proceedings does not vitiate the proceedings unless it causes prejudice to the charged officer.

Headnote:

Consultation - Departmental Enquiry - Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 - R.15 A - Kerala Public Service Commission (Consultation) Regulations, 1957 - Ext. R1(a) Circular dated 7.1.1985 - Regulation 6(1) - Kalidas v. State of Kerala (1988 (2) KLT 613) - Bhagaval Das v. State of Kerala (1994 (1) KLT 94) - State of A. P. v. N. Radhakrishnan (1988) 4 SCC 154 - A.P. Augustine v. Supdt. of Post Offices (1984 KLT 226) - Sadasivan Pillai v. State of Kerala (1983 KLT 142)

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenges the orders of punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on him after being found guilty of grave misconduct in a departmental enquiry. The petitioner alleged that the orders were vitiated due to non-consultation with the Public Service Commission, delay in initiating and concluding the proceeding, and disproportionate penalty.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that non-consultation with the Public Service Commission did not vitiate the proceeding, the delay did not cause prejudice, and the penalty of compulsory retirement was not disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.

Issues: Non-consultation with the Public Service Commission, delay in initiating and concluding the proceeding, and proportionality of the penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that consultation with the Public Service Commission was not necessary for the subordinate authority of the Government, the delay did not cause prejudice, and the penalty was not disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.

Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed with no costs.

JUDGMENT

B.N. Patnaik, J.

1. The petitioner challenges Exts. P9 and P11 orders by which punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on him being found guilty of charges in a departmental enquiry.

2. The petitioner was alleged to have committed grave misconduct while working as U.D. Clerk/Rationing Inspector in the Taluk Supply Office, Vythiri during the years 1983-1986. A departmental proceeding was initiated under R.15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 by the Board of Revenue by their letter dated 9.6.1989. After observing all the formalities of law, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report with the finding that the petitioner was guilty of grave misconduct. The Board of Revenue which was the disciplinary authority of the petitioner imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement by Ext. P9 order dated 24.8.1990. On appeal preferred by the petitioner the State Government by Ext. P11 order dated 9.4.1991 confirmed the order passed by the Board of Revenue by holding that the petitioner was guilty of grave misconduct and the imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement was just and proper.

3. The petitioner contended that the aforesaid orders are vitiated on the ground that neither the Board of Revenue nor the State Government consulted the Public Service Commission before passing the final order imposing the major penalty of compulsory retirement from service. It is also contended that the delay in initiating and concluding the proceeding has caused serious prejudice to him. The penalty imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct and as such it should be set aside.

4. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2 it is stated that it was not necessary for the Board of Revenue which is a subordinate authority of the Government to consult the Public Service Commission before imposing the major penalty of compulsory retirement. By Ext. R1(a) Circular dated 7.1.1985 the State Government has instructed that the disciplinary authorities subordinate to the Government need not consult the Public Service Commission before the imposition of any of the major penalties including compulsory retirement from service. The proceeding was initiated against the petitioner within a reasonable period and there is no such inordinate delay in finally disposing of the proceeding. Since one of the charges is that the petitioner committed the offence of forgery in the official records his continuance in service was found undesirable and as such the imposition is penalty of compulsory retirement cannot be said to be disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct.

5. Admittedly neither the Board of Revenue nor the Government consulted the Public Service Commission before passing the impugned orders. The question for consideration is whether the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner is vitiated due to non consultation with the Public Service Commission in accordance with Circular No. 145341/SD2/84/GAD dated 7.1.1985 (Ext. R1(a)). The imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement is one of the major penalties prescribed under R.11 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 (for short, CCA Rules). R.15 A of the said rules prescribes the procedure for imposing major penalties. Clause (ii) of sub-r. (1-2) of R.15 lays down that in every case in which it is necessary to consult the Commission the record of the inquiry together with a copy of the notice given under Clause (i) and the representation made in response to such notice, if any, shall be forwarded by the Disciplinary Authority to the Commission for advice. Kerala Public Service Commission (Consultation) Regulations, 1957 have been framed under Art.320(3) of the Constitution of India. Part II thereof deals with matters in respect of which it shall not be necessary for the Commission to be consulted. Regulation 6(1) thereunder lays down as follows:

"It shall not be necessary for the Commis





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top