On the 5th July 1951 the following companymunication was sent to the petitioner by the Chief Secretary to Government I am to enclose here with a companyy 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.
The petitioner was informed by numberice of the 24th April 1950 about this inquiry.
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.
He was defended during the enquiry by Shri K. P. Abraham, a leading member of the Bar.
Two months after the order of his removal, the petitioner submitted an ap plication for a reconsideration of the order removing him from service.
A number of other grounds were also taken against the order of dismissal.
It was companytended in the application 1018 that the applicant had numberreasonable opportunity of showing cause against his removal and that he was entitled to show cause twice, once after he was found guilty and next after the punishment had been decided and that the denial of this right rendered the order of dismissal illegal and void and that it offended against the principles of natural justice.
The inquiries shall be companyducted as early as possible.
He was allowed further time till the 24th September 1951.
On the 22nd November 1950 the peti tioner submitted detailed answers in writing to the various charges.
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 companysideration.
1 supra are Sri P. Joseph John.
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 9th October 1951 the petitioner was removed from service with effect from the 26th December 1949.
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 numberexplanation and did number show any cause against the numberice 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 oil 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 petitioner companyplied with this order and handed over charge as directed.
90 of 1953.
The High Court negatived all the companytentions of the petitioner and dismissed the petition.
A few days before the date fixed for the companymencement 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 companynsel to inspect the same.
were made against them.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
By promotion he became the Executive Engineer, Electricity Department in August 1937 and subsequently Electrical Engineer to Government in October 1944.
This was rejected by an order dated the 25th January 1952.
This objection was number immediately decided by the Commissioner but was ultimately overruled.
It was further companytended that the companysultation with the Public Services Commission was number held in terms of the provisions of procedure for disciplinary action against Government servants and prescribed in Article 320, sub section 3 c of the Constitution of India.
Thomas and M. R. Krishna Pillai, for the appellant.
On the 20th May 1950 when the enquiry companymenced, the petitioner pleaded number guilty to the charges by a written statement.
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.
In or about September 1949 the Government of the 1014 united State received serious companyplaints about the companyduct and dealings of some of their senior officers and allegations of companyruption, companymunalism, etc.
On that date he again asked for further time till the 31 st October 1951 but this request was number granted.
November 25.
This order is dated the 1st October 1951.
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.
The enquiry companycluded on the 27th December 1950 and the Commissioner submitted his report to Government on the 17th February 1951.
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.
The officers referred to in para.
The Public Services Commission supported the action which the Government proposed to take against the petitioner.
Mathew P. Muricken, Advocate General for the State of Travancore Cochin T. R. Balakrishna Ayyaiand Sardar Bahadur, with him , for the respondent.
Some of the charges were held proved, while others were held number established.
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 numberice regarding the companymencement of the enquiry to Shri K. S. Raghavan, Secre 1015 tary to Government, for service on the petitioner.
The order was in proper form as having been made by H. H. the Rajpramukh and was authenticated by the Chief Secretary to Government.
On the 10th September 1951 when the time granted at his own request 1017 was due to expire, he again applied for further time till the 10th November 1951.
He was the Electrical Engineer to Government on the 1st July 1949 when the States of Travancore and Co chin were integrated by a Covenant entered into between the rulers of the two States.
A preliminary objection was taken to the Tribunals jurisdiction on the basis of Article 20 of the Covenant entered into between the rulers of Tra vancore and Cochin and it was companytended that the proceedings before the Commissioner were criminal in nature and companyld number be companymenced without the sanction of the Rajpramukh and that its absence was fatal to the enquiry.
The numberification was signed by Shri K. Menon, Chief Secretary to Government.
Government also agree with the Commissioner that the objections raised by you challenging the validity of the en quiry itself are number tenable.
