Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to specified regulations; lack of defined misconduct requires clarity for fairness.

1. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board [‘the Board’ for short] is the subject matter of this writ petition.

2. The petitioner, a Lower Division Clerk in the service of the Board has been in charge of the cash of the Board from 15/01/2001. On 01/06/2011, as per Ext. P2 order, he was placed under suspension by the Board, alleging that on a verification of the accounts of the Board, it was found that the petitioner has committed misappropriation of cash, tampering of official records etc. Later Ext. P4 memo of charges was issued to the petitioner, alleging that during the period from 15/01/2001 to 31/05/2011, the petitioner had misappropriated an amount of Rs. 18,39,498/- by making improper and inaccurate entries in the cash book, short remittances of amounts at the Treasury and Bank, short accounting of loan repayments, short accounting of provident fund withdrawals, non - remitting of pension contributions, misappropriation of permanent advances using false vouchers, withholding of unutilised balanced funds, tampering of records etc.

3. According to the petitioner, Ext. P4 memo of charges does not specify the source of power of the Board to initiate disciplinary action against him with reference to the Conduct Rules. He, therefore, preferred Ext. P6 representation before the secretary of the Board to let him know the provision on the basis of which the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against him on the allegations raised in Ext. P4 memo of charges. The petitioner also requested for copies of the various documents relied on by the Board to arrive at the conclusion that he had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 18,39,498/-. The writ petition was filed thereafter seeking orders to quash Ext. P2 order of suspension and Ext. P4 memo of charges.

4. A counter - affidavit has been filed by the Board. In the counter - affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner was not participating in the enquiry ordered against him for one or other reasons and the Board is therefore not in a position to complete the enquiry ordered against him.

5. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner to the counter - affidavit filed by the Board. In the reply affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner has not been given the essential documents requested for by him.

6. On 19/03/2013, this Court passed an interim order restraining the Board from passing final orders in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. It was however, clarified that the enquiry can go on. It was also clarified that it will be open to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry without prejudice to his contentions in the writ petition. In the light of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner submitted his written statement of defence to the memo of charges. Ext. P10 is the written statement of defence submitted by the petitioner to the memo of charges. In the written statement of defence, the petitioner had contended inter alia that the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board Employees’ Conduct Regulations and the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board Service (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations do not authorise the Board to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on the allegations levelled against him in Ext. P4 memo of charges.

7. Heard Sri. James Vincent, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Tom. K. Thomas, the learned counsel for the first respondent.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Ext. P4 memo of charges has been issued in contravention of the provisions contained Regu