Full Judgment
Kurian Joseph, J.
1. Suspension is made in public interest. But should there be assessment of publicinterest while passing an order for revocation of suspension pending enquiry?
2. The challenge in the Original Petition is against Ext. P1 order passed by theGovernment placing the petitioner under suspension. It is seen from the impugnedorder itself that the suspension was in connection with the hooch tragedy atKalluvathukkal and Kottarakkara in Kollam District. The tragedy took place whilethe petitioner was working as Deputy Commissioner of Excise, South Zone. BothKalluvathukkal and Kottarakkara come under the jurisdiction of the DeputyCommissioner of Excise, South Zone. Though pursuant to Ext. P3 judgment of thisCourt, the representation for revocation of suspension was considered, the requestwas turned down as per Ext. P4. Petitioner contends that all the relevant aspectshave not been considered either while suspending the petitioner or while passing Ext. P4order rejecting the request for revocation of the suspension. It is further contendedbased on Ext. P5 statement filed by the Government before Justice V.P. Mohan KumarCommission of Inquiry that there is no involvement of the petitioner in the matter.
3. It is brought to my notice that during the pendency of the Original Petition,memo of charges has been framed and issued to the petitioner and it is only a matterof time for the Government and that final decision can be taken in the disciplinaryproceedings. Any observation at this stage might prejudice the enquiry now conductedin the matter and ultimately the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, taking an overallassessment of the situation, I dispose of the Original Petition directing the respondentsto see that the disciplinary proceedings now pending against the petitioner pursuant toExt. P1 are concluded within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of thisjudgment.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that liberty may be reserved tothe Government/Commissioner to review the suspension in the meanwhile. Needlessto say, it will be open to the authorities to do so since the rules contemplate suchreview once in six months. It is made clear that the disposal of the Original Petitionwill not stand in the way of the Government/Commissioner reviewing the suspensionorder in accordance with law.
5. Before parting with the case, I shall deal with the legal question that hasincidentally arisen in this case. During the pendency of the Original Petition, it wasbrought to the notice of the Court that some police officers against whom there werevery serious allegations of commissions of offences in connection with the liquor tragedywere reinstated pending enquiry and posted in the same districts. This Court in theorder dated 17.10.2001 directed the Chief Secretary to file an affidavit on certainaspects. One specific issue read as follows:-
'Was the reinstatement of the Police Officers involved in the case done with the knowledgeof the Government and was there an assessment of public interest at the time when orders forreinstatement and posting of those officers were passed'.
In the affidavit dated 3.11.2001, referring to the said issue it is stated at paragraph 8 asfollows:-
'Regarding the second direction it is humbly submitted that the Police Officers suspendedby the Director General of Police were reinstated by him without the Knowledge of Government.As Head of Department, Director General of Police is competent to take disciplinary actionagainst the police officers upto the rank of Inspector of Police. The Government is not usuallyconsulted in such matters. I beg leave to submit to this Hon'ble Court that the question of publicinterest does not arise in this case as the reinstatement of the officers are done in the course ofdisciplinary proceedings.'
The stand of the Chief Secretary is not correct; it is against the statutory mandatealso. Under Rule 10 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)Rules, suspension is ordered in public interest. I need not elaborate what public interestis, since it involves so many aspects. As the chief executive officer of the State, theChief Secretary has a duty to see that his subordinates act only in accordance withlaw. If the suspension is in public interest, necessarily at the time of reinstatementpending disciplinary action public interest has to be considered. True, disciplinaryproceedings as far as a delinquent employee is concerned has to be governed by codified rules. But even under thecodified rules, namely the Classification, Controland Appeal Rules, it is mandatory that an erring officer should be kept out of serviceby suspension pending disciplinary action if public interest so warrants. On a closeanalysis of the provision it can be seen that suspension is warranted only in publicinterest. If suspension is made in public interest, at the time of revocation thereof alsopublic interest has to be weighed. The contention that public interest need not weighwith the disciplinary authority is at the stage of passing final orders in the disciplinaryproceedings and not at the time of revocation of suspension.
6. The learned Advocate General invited my attention to the decision of theApex Court in Rajnit Prasad v. Union of India ((2000) 9 SCC 313), particularly toparagraph 9 which reads as follows:
'....In respect of departmental proceedings which are initiated or sought to be initiated bythe Government against its employees, a person who is not even remotely connected with thoseproceedings cannot challenge any aspect of the departmental proceedings or action by filinga Writ Petition in the High Court or in this Court. Disciplinary action against an employee is takenby the Government for various reasons principally for 'misconduct' on the part of the employee.This action is taken after a 'domestic' inquiry in which the employee is provided an opportunityof hearing as required by the constitutional mandate. It is essentially a matter between theemployer and the employee, and a stranger, much less a practising advocate, cannot be said tohave any interest in those proceedings. Public interest of general importance is not involvedin disciplinary proceedings. In fact, if such petitions are entertained at the instance of personswho are not connected with those proceedings, it would amount to an abuse of the process of court.'
7. It may be seen that in that case a public interest litigation was filed by astranger challenging the interference by the High Court quashing the disciplinaryproceedings against a police officer. Obviously, the context and connotation of theexpression 'public interest' there is totally different and hence that decision has noapplication here particularly since this is a case of revocation pending disciplinaryproceedings. It is for the Chief Secretary to ensure that the subordinates also act inaccordance with law, particularly in the matter of suspension and revocation thereof,both being actuated and necessitated only in public interest. Any adverse impact onpublic interest results in disorder in society. Therefore, the moment the Chief Secretarycomes across instances of subordinates acting against the mandate in the rules andagainst public interest, he has a duty to put things in order, since public interest isprotected and respected in a State only if there is law and order.
The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of theOriginal Petition before the respondents.
8. Communicate a copy of this judgment to the Chief Secretary, Government ofKerala.