Kerala High Court
K.S.R.T.C. vs Abdul Latheef on 28 July, 2005
Equivalent citations: IV(2005)BC298, 2005(3)KLT955
Author: K.A. Abdul Gafoor
Bench: K.A. Abdul Gafoor, K. Hema
JUDGMENT K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.
1. K.S.R.T.C. is in appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge wherein first respondent is directed to be reinstated, quashing Ext.P12 order of dismissal from service. After an application for voluntary retirement has been forwarded, a charge sheet was issued on him on 27.8.1998. A detailed enquiry was conducted. Based on the enquiry report a show cause notice was issued, Ext.P7. It was responded to in Ext.P8. Considering the report of enquiry wherein he has been found guilty, Ext.P9 order of dismissal was passed. The show cause notice Ext. reveals that the enquiry report had never been furnished to the delinquent. It is a requirement in terms of Rule 15(12) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 as made applicable to the service of the appellant. Even otherwise it is an essential requirement of natural justice. On that reason itself the dismissal order is liable to be quashed. Therefore the judgment of the learned single Judge is perfectly justified.
2. Further the allegation against him was involvement in a criminal case. He has not been told that he had been found guilty. Even if it is so, the criminal case alleged was one involving an offence Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against which an appeal is pending. This has also been appraised to the K.S.R.T.C. It was in spite of that the dismissal order has been passed. Even if there was conviction, under Rule 18 of the Rules, it was incumbent on the appointing authority to consider the circumstances as to the misconduct which lead to the conviction and to pass appropriate orders. Every cases of conviction shall not result in dismissal.
3. When the requirement in Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is satisfied, one will be deemed to have committed offence. It is only a deeming provision. Offence Under Section 138 of the Act being an offence in the commercial practice cannot be taken as one involving moral turpitude, in the absence of any other cogent material to discern moral turpitude. No such special circumstance is pointed out by the appellant. In such circumstances also the direction to reinstate the first respondent cannot be said to be unjustified.
Appeal fails and is dismissed.