Skip to content


Rama Krishnan Thambi Vs. State of Kerala - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1966)ILLJ235Ker
AppellantRama Krishnan Thambi
RespondentState of Kerala
Cases ReferredJagadindro Nath Gupta v. Shillong and Ors. A.I.R.
Excerpt:
- - 5. in the light of the above, the ground that there has been a failure to afford a reasonable opportunity cannot stand......which reads as follows:(a) where a person, is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which had led to his conviction on a criminal charge.3. there is no need to afford any reasonable opportunity.4. it is admitted that if the proviso is applicable, the procedure adopted cannot be questioned. but counsel on behalf of the petitioner has strenuously urged that the proviso can apply only to cases of conduct which had occurred after the appointment of a person to government service. i must confess, the position is not clear from the wording of the proviso. but at the same time there is no reason why the ambit of the proviso should be limited to conduct which occurred after the date of appointment. i am supported in the latter view by the decision of the assam.....
Judgment:

P. Govindan Nair, J.

1. The writ applicant was provisionally appointed in Government service as an insurance medical officer under the Employees' State Insurance Scheme. But by Ex. P. 1 order dated 18 May 1963 the petitioner has been dismissed from service and it is stated in Ex. P. 1 that the petitioner Should be debarred from future employment under Government.

2. The reasons for this dismissal are also stated in the order, Ex. P. 1, the main ground being that the petitioner has been convicted in a criminal offence involving moral turpitude. The action is said to have been taken under Rule 18(i) and with Rule 11(viii) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960. This order was passed without issuing any show-cause notice to the petitioner and without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. And naturally this is challenged by counsel on behalf of the petitioner as being unsupportable. The reply to this is based on the proviso to Article 311 of the Constitution which reads as follows:

(a) Where a person, is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which had led to his conviction on a criminal charge.

3. There is no need to afford any reasonable opportunity.

4. It is admitted that if the proviso is applicable, the procedure adopted cannot be questioned. But counsel on behalf of the petitioner has strenuously urged that the proviso can apply only to cases of conduct which had occurred after the appointment of a person to Government service. I must confess, the position is not clear from the wording of the proviso. But at the same time there is no reason why the ambit of the proviso should be limited to conduct which occurred after the date of appointment. I am supported in the latter view by the decision of the Assam High Court in Jagadindro Nath Gupta v. Shillong and Ors. A.I.R. 1959 Assam 134. No other decision has been brought to my notice and I have not been informed that the above decision has been criticized or overruled.

5. In the light of the above, the ground that there has been a failure to afford a reasonable opportunity cannot stand. I, therefore, dismiss this writ petition, but make no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //