P.T. Raman Nayar, J.
1. The petitioner is an Assistant Surgeon appointed temporarily under Rule 9 of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. Whether or not he is a member of a service, he holds a civil post under the Kerala Government and is, therefore, a Government servant within the definition in Rule 2(d) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and is, therefore, subject to disciplinary action under Rule 11. Admittedly he applied for regular appointment as an Assistant Surgeon, and one of the conditions of the notification issued by the Service Commission when calling for applications was that only candidates willing to join the defence services need apply. This condition was inserted as directed by Government by their order Ex. P. 4 dated 2 March 1965 to serve as an incentive for joining the defence services where there was a shortage of men in technical categories such as engineers and doctors. Thus, by his very application, the petitioner expressed his willingness to join the defence services, but, when called upon to make an application for the purpose, he declined to do so. Government have, therefore, initiated disciplinary action against him and it is urged on his behalf that they have no jurisdiction to do so since, although he has been selected by the Service Commission for regular appointment as Assistant Surgeon, he has not been actually so appointed and still continues to be only a temporary Assistant Surgeon. It was no part of the conditions of appointment to the latter post that he should, if required, join the defence services.
2. As I have pointed out, in his very capacity as a temporary Assistant Surgeon appointed under Rule 9 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, the petitioner is a Government servant against whom Government is entitled to take disciplinary action under Rule 11 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. It is to be noted that it is not with regard to the office for which he has been selected but to which he has not yet been appointed, but with regard to the office that he is actually holding that the action has been taken. And if, as was at one stage suggested by his counsel, the petitioner is not a Government servant, then, of course, he would have no cause of action at all if Government chose to take what they called disciplinary action against him. Now, under Rule 11, Government can impose a penalty on a Government servant for good and sufficient reason. I am not prepared to hold that the conduct of a Government servant who seeks another appointment under Government and secures selection for it on the assurance that he is willing to join the defence services and then, after securing selection, goes back on his word is not such as to furnish good and sufficient reason within the meaning of Rule 11. The least that can be said of him is that he trifled with Government and if Government think that such a person merits punishment I would not blame them. That being so, Rule 10 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules gives Government the power to suspend the petitioner (as they have done) pending the disciplinary proceeding against him, and whether this is too drastic a step is not for me to consider. It can scarcely be said that Government are acting with some ulterior motive or that the disciplinary proceeding they have initiated is without jurisdiction. The action that they can take against the petitioner is by no means confined to cancelling his selection for regular appointment and the argument that his conduct in going back on his assurance has nothing to do with his duties or functions as temporary Assistant Surgeon, the post he is now holding, stems from the fallacious assumption-nonetheless fallacious for being generally held-that disciplinary action can be taken against a Government servant only in respect of conduct connected with his official functions.
3. I dismiss the petition.