Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker294
ORDERS. Velu Pillai, J. 1. The petitioner, who had been a Range Officer in the former Travancore-Cochin State service, has tiled this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, to set aside the order Ext. P1, passed by the respondent, the State of Kerala, on 4-7-1958, reducing him in rank and barring his promotion for a period of two years, He had been ordered to be punished on the same allegations against him by an earlier order Ext. P2, passed by the Government of Travancore-Cochin; but at the hearing of Original Petition 310 of 1956, which had been preferred by him to this court to quash Ext. P2, counsel for the contending parties agreed, that the case against the petitioner might be examined by the Government after consulting the Public Service Commission and that the petitioner might move again under Article 226, should the need arise; the contentions raised were left undecided. Now that the second order also has gone against the petitioner, he has filed this petition.2. Havi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1958Ker374; (1958)IILLJ724Ker
M.S. Menon, J.1. The petitioner is an Assistant Engineer who has been placed under suspension by Ext. P-7 dated 2-7-1957 and regarding whom a formal and public inquiry has been ordered by Ext. P-9 dated 21-11-1957 under Sec. 2 of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1122. Section 2 of the Act reads as follows: 'If, after a preliminary inquiry or otherwise, our Government are of opinion that there are sufficient grounds for making a formal and public inquiry into the truth of any imputation of misconduct by any person in the service of Our Government not removable from Office without their sanction, our Government shall cause the substance of the imputations to be drawn up into distinct articles of charge and shall order a formal and public inquiry to be made into the truth thereof.' It is clear from the section that the foundation for ordering a formal and public inquiry is the Government's SATISFACTION that there are sufficient grounds for making such an inquiry into the truth of any ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1963Ker92
C.A. Vaidialingam, J,1. In this writ petition Mr. T. N. Subramania Iyer, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges the proceedings taken by the State Government, and which ultimately resulted in the passing of the order, Ext. P-8, by the respondent on 20-6-1961. Under Ext. P-8, it will be seen that the State Government are of the view that, misbehaviour as against the petitioner, has been proved and that he is dismissed from service with effect from 13-2-1961, the date on which he was placed under suspension, pending enquiry into the charges framed as against him.2. The petitioner joined as a clerk in the Land Revenue Department in 1107 and he was occupying various positions after that period and ultimately in 1955, he was promoted and posted as Sub-Magistrate, Irinjalakuda. On 6-10-1956, the Bar Association, Irinjalakuda, passed a resolution alleging serious misconduct as against the petitioner and requesting for action being taken as against him. On a copy of the resolution bein...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1961)IILLJ486Ker
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, Sri T.N. Subramania Iyer, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to have the order of respondent 1, Ex.P. 1, dated 20 October 1960 quashed by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order. 2. The order Ex.P. 1 itself is to the effect that investigations conducted into allegations against the three officers mentioned therein, one of whom is the petitioner, have disclosed prima facie that the officers have committed the two irregularities stated therein. Ex.P. 1 also states that the allegations referred to therein, for which there is prima facie evidence are of a serious nature warranting disciplinary action and the Government consider that the case against the three officers mentioned therein should be proceeded with and enquired into under the Kerala Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1960 and the Government order accordingly. 3. Ex.P. 1 is also...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2006(4)KLT166
V.K. Bali, C.J.1. Simple but significant question that arises in these three connected Writ Petitions is as to whether the Lok Ayukta, exercising powers under the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1999', has suo motu powers to conduct any investigation with respect to matters in its domain envisaged under the Act. Put in other words, whether the Lok Ayukta under the Act of 1999 would have jurisdiction to investigate grievance sought to be ventilated or projected in anonymous or pseudonymous letters, newspaper reports or a letter of complaint which may be received by him without complying with the necessary procedure as enshrined under the various provisions of the Act. Before we may, however, delve on the question as posed above in the context of rival contentions raised by the counsel representing the parties it would be useful to give a resume of the facts culminating into filing of the three petitions which the learned Counsel representing the parties a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1972)IILLJ509Ker
P. Subramanian Poti, J.1. The petitioner is the II Member of the Board of Revenue of the Kerala State, now under suspension. Justice M. U, Isaac of This Court had been appointed as Commissioner under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, to enquire into certain matters relating to the acquisition of land for the Kerala Agricultural University. In the light of the facts that came out in the enquiry conducted by Issac, J., Government contemplated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner Sri K.K. Ramankutty and this was communicated to him by a memo, dated 12-11-1971, the copy of which is Ext. P-2. Six charges were framed against the petitioner and his statement of defence was called for. At that stage the petitioner came to This Court seeking to quash Ext. P-2 memo of charges on the ground that the charges were, on the face of them, unsustainable. This Court felt that it was too premature to say that the charges were unsustainable and, therefore, the petition O.P. No. 5454 of 1971...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1963Ker316; (1963)IILLJ290Ker
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J. 1. In this writ petition, Mr. M. K. Nambiar, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges as illegal and void, the order Ex. P-11, passed by the State Government on 8-3-1963 placing, under suspension, the petitioner, who was at the material time, the 1st Member of the Board of Revenue, in the State. The order shows that the petitioner has been placed under suspension under Rule 7 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, till the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner are completed. It is necessary to state the matters which are mentioned in the order, Ex. P-11, which will show, the circumstances under which the State Government decided to take action under Rule 7.2. It is mentioned that the Government have received several petitions containing serious allegations of official misconduct against the petitioner who is a member of the Indian Administrative Service and the First Member of the Board of Revenue and was also...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1971)IILLJ261Ker
P. Naryana Pillai, J.1. For inquiring into the truth of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour against the petitioner who is a member of the Indian Police Service, borne on the Kerala cadre, the State Government, which is the disciplinary authority and the first respondent in this petition, appointed under Rule 8(2) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 first, Shri R. Gopala Shenoy and later Shri P.A. Quadir Meeran, the second respondent, as the inquiring authority. The presenting officer appointed by the first respondent to present on its behalf the case in support of the articles of charge represented before Shri. R. Gopala Shenoy that it would not be possible to secure the attendance of all witnesses unless coercive steps were issued to them. As the All India Services Rules did not provide for taking coercive steps against unwilling witnesses to secure their attendance before the inquiring authority Shri R. Gopala Shenoy wrote to the Secretary in charge of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1962Ker43
Madhavan Nair, J. 1. The appellant was a clerk in the Taluk Office, Meenachil, who was dismissed as per Ext. P-3 order of the 2nd respondent, the Board of Revenue, Kerala, on charges of falsification of accounts, tampering with the records and misappropriation of Government money while he was a clerk in the Jenmikaram Section of the Taluk Office. That order was, on appeal, affirmed hy Ext. P-4 order of the 1st respondent, the Government of Kerala. By O. P. No. 424 of 1958 he prayed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing Exts. P-3 and P-4 orders and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate him in service. But it was dismissed by Justice Sri M. S. Menon. This appeal is against that order. 2. The contention urged by the appellant is that the proceedings which culminated in Ext. P-3 order of his dismissal were conducted in a manner violative of all rules of natural justice and as such the impugned orders are unsustainable in law. 3. The admitted facts of the cas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker279; (1960)IILLJ398Ker; (1960)IILLJ398Ker
ORDERS.Velu Pillai, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the validity of Ext. P-6, an order dated 24-1-1959, passed by the respondent, the Government of the State of Kerala removing him from service as a Sub-Inspector of Police. A petition of complaint against him for alleged misconduct, was presented to the then Minister for Law by one Radhamma, upon which, pending enquiry, he was suspended from service on 17-2-1958. Preliminary enquiries having been made thereon, Government ordered, by notification dated 7-3-1958. 'a detailed departmental enquiry under the Kerala Civil Service (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957', which may be referred to hereafter as the Kerala Rules, to be held on the complaint for 'indecent behaviour and misconduct' on his part, and committed the enquiry to the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge who may he referred to hereafter as the Commissioner. Upon the complaint, the Commissioner framed a char...
Tag this Judgment!