To The Asstt.
He was told that an enquiry will be held against him on the basis of that charge.
But the same was number accepted by the Disciplinary Authority.
1/1/63/Estt Cus.
Thereafter, it is said that the appellant acting on behalf of his wife purchased some cars which were used as taxis.
The said Shivaraman was a trained police prosecutor.
Appeal by Special Leave from the judgment and order dated March 26, 1970 of the Kerala High Court in Writ Appeal No.
It appears that on December 30, 1963 the Enquiry Officer fixed January 8, 1964 as the date of enquiry.
Therefore he was unable to assist the appellant in the enquiry.
Hence Abraham Kurian did number get the permission sought before the date of enquiry.
In April 1962, he applied to the Assistant Collector of Customs, seeking permission to allow his wife to run a taxi service.
On December 9, 1963, the appellant wrote to the Enquiry Officer as follows Sec.
Thanking you, I remain Sir, Yours faithfully, Sd C. L. Subramaniam.
II, Customs House, Cochin 3.
Those companyplaints were enquired into.
The appellant submitted his explana tion.
It appears that there were several ,complaints against the appellant to the effect that he was canvassing business for his wife.
Collector of Customs Apprg. ,
With reference to your letter dated 3rd December, 1963 wish to submit as follows Shri Abraham Kurian, Clerk, Cochin Head Post Office who is to assist me in the enquiry from 5 12 1963 in companynection with certain allegations pending against me has urgently applied to his superior yesterday itself and is awaiting permission.
Enquiry Officer, Custom House, Cochin 3.
In the result the appellant was ordered to be removed from service.
He was informed that numberpermission was necessary for his wife to operate a taxi service but he should number canvass any business for his wife.
On the basis of that recommendation the Disciplinary Authority served on the appellant a numberice to show cause why he should number be removed from service.
It is only thereafter he wrote to the Superintendent of Post Offices requesting him to permit Abraham Kurian to assist the appellant.
He challenged the validity of the order removing him from service on various grounds.
From L., Subramaniam, Preventive Officer Gr.
The appellant challenged that order by means of a petition under Art.
Hence this appeal.
The appellant personally argued his appeal.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1/1/63 Estt.
After learning that fact from Abraham Kurian, the appellant wrote the following letter to the Collector of Customs on December 4, 1963.
9th December 1963 From L. Subramaniam, Preventive Officer, Custom House, Cochin 3.
11 of 1971.
During the pendency of the enquiry an additional ground in support of the charge was served on the appellant to the effect that he himself was running the taxi service.
The factual allegation made against the appellant was that he canvassed business for his wife.
226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Kerala.
His writ petition was first heard by a single judge who dismissed the same and the order of the single judge was affirmed by a Division Bench of that High Court.
Appellant appeared in person.
Gobind Dass and S. P. Nayar, for the Respondent.
As I cannot appear for the enquiry without assistance I re quest you Sir, to adjourn the hearing by 10 days.
It is number known when that letter was received by the Superintendent of Post Offices but Abraham Kurian did number get the permission sought, before the date of enquiry.
Hence the enquiry went on without the appellant having anybodys assistance.
197 of 1968.
Thereafter on March 25, 1963 the appellant was served with a memorandum stating that while functioning as Preventive Officer, Grade II, Cochin Customs House, during the period June 1962 to January 31, 1963 he had companytravened the provisions of rule 12 1 of the Central Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1955.
After he was appointed to present the case in support of the allegations made against the appellant, the appellant wrote to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, the Disciplinary Authority on October 4, 1963 as follows From C. L. Subramanlam, Preventive Officer, Customs House, Cochin 3.
Sri H. T. Soares, Assistant Collector, Customs House, Cochin was appointed as the Enquiry Officer.
TO The Collector of Customs, Customs House, Cochin 3.
On the date of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer adjourned the case sine die after obtaining an undertaking from the appellant that on the next date of the enquiry he would go on with the case even if he was unable to get the assistance of Abraham Kurian on that date.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hedge, J., This is an appeal by special leave.
After enquiry the Enquiry Officer came to the, companyclusion that the allegations made against the appellant were established and companysequently he was guilty of companytravening rule 12 1 of the Central Civil Service Conduct Rules, 1955.
Sir, Sub Enquiry into the work and companyduct of Shri C. L. Subramaniam, Preventive Officer, Custom House Cochin.
The appellant was a Preventive Officer, Grade, 11, Customs Office, Cochin from June 16, 1962 to January 31, 1963.
4th December 1963.
Yours faithfully, Sd 9 12 63 L. Subramaniam Even after getting this letter, the Enquiry Officer did number fix the date of the enquiry.
The Enquiry Officer recommended appellants removal from service.
16 Customs Quarters Willingdon island, P.O. Cochin 3.
