K C CHANDRASEKHARAN S/O K C CHAMU Vs. STATE OF KERALA
LAWS(KER)-1963-7-41
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on July 02,1963

K.C.CHANDRASEKHARAN, K.C.CHAMU Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

KARNAIL SINGH VS. THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-1974-5-25] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF A P VS. N RAMANAIAH [LAWS(SC)-2009-5-85] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS appeal is against the refusal by a learned Single Judge to issue a writ of certiorari to quash me Government's order dismissing the appellant from service for proved corruption.
(2.)THE Government having received reports that the appellant, while he was special Forest Officer, Kutnuparamba, received illegal gratification and helped illicit transport of timber from the forest areas under his jurisdiction, conducted a preliminary investigation which disclosed a prima fade case, placed the appellant under suspensions, framed specific charges against him, served them on him, and finding his explanation thereto unsatisfactory, ordered art enquiry by the Enquiry commissioner and special Judge, who submitted his report to Government on May 16, 1959 finding corruption on the part of the appellant and recommencing his removal from service. Government then consulted the Public Service commission, who, by their letter dated July 23, 1959, concurred with the findings of the Inquiring Authority and recommended the appellant's dismissal from service on 7-8-1959 the appellant was asked why he should not be dismissed from service, the explanation he offered on April 14, 1960, did not find favour with the Government who dismissed him from service by the order Ext. P 4 dated June 21, 1960. It was to quash the order Ext. P 4 that a writ was sought from this Court and that motion having failed before a learned judge the appellant has come up with this appeal.
(3.)THE complaint is that under Rule 17 (5) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, the inquiring Authority should have submitted his report to the Appointing Authority, who, in this case, was the conservator of Forests, in which case me appellant would have had a right of appeal to Government from the penalty that rightly have been imposed on him by the Appointing Authority, that as the report was submitted to the Government and the punishment imposed on him by the Government he was deprived of his right of appeal and that that amounted to a denial of reasonable opportunity guaranteed in Article 311 (2) of me Constitution.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.