- (1.) This appeal by leave of the High Court of Judicature of Travancore-Cochin at Ernakulam is directed against an order of a Full Bench of that court dismissing an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Government of the united State of Travancore-Cochin removing the appellant from service of the State and permanently debarring him from reappointment in service.
(2.) The facts giving rise to the petition and the appeal are these: The petitioner entered the service of the erstwhile Travancore State in the year 1928. By promotion he became the Executive Engineer, Electricity Department in August 1937 and subsequently Electrical Engineer to Government in October 1944. He was the Electric Engineer to Government on the 1st July 1949 when the States of Travancore and Cochin were integrated by a Covenant entered into between the rulers of the two States. By an order of the Government of the united State of Travancore-Cochin dated the 11th August 1949, he was appointed as the officiating Chief Engineer (Electricity) in the State. In or about September 1949 the Government of the united State received serious complaints about the conduct and dealings of some of their senior officers and allegations of corruption, communalism, etc. were made against them. In December 1949 the Council of Ministers decided to take action against the appellant on a number of charges indicated in the resolution. On the 22nd December 1949, immediately after this resolution was passed, the petitioner was informed that he was suspended from service pending enquiry and he was requested to hand over charge to Sri K. P. Sridharan Nair forthwith. The petitioner complied with this order and handed over charge as directed. On the 21st March 1950 the fallowing notification was issued: "Whereas Government are of opinion that there are sufficient grounds for making a formal and public inquiry into the truth of the imputation of misconduct of the officers mentioned below : Government, under Section 3 of the Travancore Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 11 of 1122, hereby commit the said inquiry to Sri K. Sankaran, Judge, High Court, appointed Commissioner for the purpose. Government are further pleased under Section 4 of the said Act to nominate Sri T. R. Balakrishna Ayyar, Government Pleader, High Court, to prosecute the inquiries on their behalf. The inquiries shall be conducted as early as possible. The officers referred to in para. 1 supra are : 1....... ...... ...... ...... 2. Sri P. Joseph John". The petitioner was informed by notice of the 24th April 1950 about this inquiry. The notification was signed by Shri K. G. Menon, Chief Secretary to Government.
(3.) Mr. Justice Sankaran took charge as Enquiry Commissioner and on the 11th May 1950 forwarded the articles of charges against the petitioner, the list of witnesses and the list of documents placed before him together with the notice regarding the commencement of the enquiry to Shri K.S. Raghavan, Secretary to Government, for service on the petitioner. A few days before the date fixed for the commencement of the enquiry the petitioner made an application to the Enquiry Commissioner for a direction to the Prosecutor to produce the files and papers relating to the various charges in the office of the Commissioner and for permission to him and his counsel to inspect the same. This application was allowed and he and his advocate were allowed to inspect the relevant files in the presence of the Prosecutor or his deputy. On the 20th May 1950 when the enquiry commenced, the petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charges by a written statement. He was defended during the enquiry by Shri K. P. Abraham, a leading member of the Bar. A preliminary objection was, taken to the Tribunal's jurisdiction on the basis of Article 20 of the Covenant entered into between the rulers of Travancore and Cochin and it was contended that the proceedings before the Commissioner were criminal in nature and could not be commenced without the sanction of the Rajpramukh and that its absence was fatal to the enquiry. This objection was not immediately decided by the Commissioner but was ultimately overruled. On the 22nd November 1950 the petitioner submitted detailed answers in writing to the various charges. The enquiry concluded on the 27th December 1950 and the Commissioner submitted his report to Government on the 17th February 1951. Some of the charges were held proved, while others were held not established. On the 5th July 1951 the following communication was sent to the petitioner by the Chief Secretary to Government : "I am to enclose herewith a copy of the above report and to point out that the Government agree with the findings of the Inquiring Commissioner on the several charges against you. Government also agree with the Commissioner that the objections raised by you challenging the validity of the enquiry itself are not tenable. 2. As against the 26 charges framed against you, the nine charges noted in the margin (here below) have not been established and they are accordingly dropped. As regards Charge No. IX in view of the extenuating circumstances, the irregularity is condoned. 3. It is evident from the remaining charges, which have been established, that you have misused your official position as Electrical Engineer to Government and shown undue favouritism at the expense of State revenues to private firms and issued materials from Government stores to private companies and individuals in violation of all rules (Vide List A). It is also evident that departmental stores and departmental lorries have been diverted for your personal use in a number of cases. (Vide List B). You are also found guilty of having shown defiance and insubordination towards the authority of the Government by your refusal, in connection with the supply of power to the Nagercoil Electric Supply Corporation, to supply certain 'particulars which were called for and which it was your duty to furnish and by your refusal to withdraw the objectionable statement in your reply to the Government in spite of the Government order directing you to withdraw the same. 4. The Government therefore propose to remove you from service from the date on which you were placed under suspension with permanent bar against future reappointment in service. 5. You are requested to show cause within 15 days of the date of receipt of this notice with enclosures why action should not be taken against you as proposed in paragraph 4 above". The petitioner on receipt of this notice applied or time till the 10th September 1951 for showing cause. Time as prayed for was allowed. On the 10th September 1951 when the time granted at his own request was due to expire, he again applied for further time till the 10th November 1951. Ho was allowed further time till the 24th September 1951. On that date he again asked for further time till the 31st October 1951 but thin request was not granted. In spite of the fact that the petitioner was granted the time which he originally asked for and this was further extended by a fortnight, he furnished no explanation and did not show any cause against the notice issued to him. The petitioner having failed to avail himself of the opportunity to show cause against the action proposed against him, a draft of the proceedings relating to the enquiry was submitted to H. H. the Rajpramukh on the 30th September 1951 and thereupon an order was issued for his removal from service from the date of suspension and debarring him from reappointment to service. The order was in proper form as having been made by H. H. the Rajpramukh and was authenticated by the Chief Secretary to Government. This order is dated the 1st October 1951. It may be mentioned that before the papers were submitted to H. H. the Rajpramukh. the report of the Commissioner was submitted to the Public Services Commission for their consideration. The Public Services Commission supported the action which the Government proposed to take against the petitioner. On the 9th October 1951 the petitioner was removed from service with effect from the 26th December 1949. Two months after the order of his removal, the petitioner submitted an application for a reconsideration of the order removing him from service. This was injected by an order dated the 25th January 1952.;