SUBRAMANIAM C L Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
LAWS(KER)-1968-9-25
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on September 13,1968

SUBRAMANIAM C L Appellant
VERSUS
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS writ petition prays to quash the disciplinary proceedings taken against the petitioner terminating in Ex. P. 8 order of respondent 1 removing the petitioner from service.
(2.) EXHIBIT P. 1 dated 25 August 1963, issued by respondent 1, is the memorandum of charge together with the statement of allegations against the petitioner. The charge was that the petitioner, while functioning as Preventive Officer, grade II, Customs Office, Cochin, during the period from June 1962 up to 31 January 1963 contravened the provisions of Rule 12 (1) of the Central Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955 (referred to as the Conduct Rules for short ). The statement of allegations accompanying the charge stated that reply to letters dated 11 and 17 April 1962 from the petitioner, regarding the purchase and running of taxis by his wife, Smt. Brinda Lakshmi, the petitioner was informed by the Assistant Collector of Customs that no permission was necessary as the purchase was statedly to be financed by his wife's relatives, but that the petitioner should not canvass in support of his wife's business as enjoined by the explanation to Rule 12 (1) of the Conduct Rules. It was stated that in spite of the specific instructions thus issued, the petitioner had canvassed from several merchants daily having official dealings with the Customs House, for the taxi business of his wife, as could be seen from fifteen letters appended to the memorandum, copies of which were enclosed to the petitioner. An enquiry by respondent 2 into the charges commenced on 13 July 1963, and after examining certain witnesses, the petitioner submitted Ex. P. 2 statement dated 3 August 1963. The statement purports to be " supplemental statement on the basis of the evidence placed before the enquiry officer" and "in continuation of" the petitioner's letter in the form of defence statement dated 15 April 1963. Thereafter, a fresh memorandum dated 30 December 1963 [ (sic) 30 September 1963 (?)] issued by respondent 1 was served on the petitioner. Exhibit P. 3 is a copy thereof. It is expressly stated that it was in continuation and furtherance of Ex, P. 1 memorandum, and enclosed a statement of allegations received in respondent 1's office after Ex. P. 1 charge and after the commencement of the enquiry. These were stated to be additional grounds in support of the charge already framed against the petitioner, which was being enquired into by respondent 2. The additional allegations thus served on the petitioner were these : that on 13 August 1962 he purchased a taxi car K. L. R. 1772 for Rs. 10,500 from Sri K. V. Kumaran, proprietor of Kumar Taxis, in the name of his wife Smt. Brinda Lakshmi; that in April 1962 he purchased another taxi, K. L. R. 3431 from Sri P. I. Sadanandan, proprietor of Shaila Taxis, also in the name of his wife; that on 30 December 1962 he purchased the taxi, concern Travels India, from its proprietor Sri Lazar Godfrey for Rs. 25,000 again, in the name of his wife ; that the negotiations for the purchases were all made by him and that he had been running the firm, Travels India, and also taxis; that he asked Sri A. S. Sivaraman of Mahavir and Co. more than once to inform his proprietors about his running the taxi concern and to request them to engage his taxis ; that he had not obtained the sanction of the Government to purchase taxis or to run taxis either in his name, or in his wife's name, or to canvass business on behalf of his wife ; and that on the above facts, he had contravened Rule 12 (1) of the Conduct Rules.
(3.) THE petitioner replied to Ex, P. 3 memorandum by Ex. P. 4 statement dated 10 November 1963. The enquiry was continued and completed, and Ex. P. 5 is a copy of the enquiry officer's report. Exhibit P. 6 is the copy of the show cause notice, issued by respondent 1 to the petitioner against the proposed penalty of removal from service. This was inflicted by Ex. P. 3 order after considering Ex. P. 7 explanation submitted by the petitioner.;


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