M. Sherif v. State of Kerala & Ors.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/26TH SRAVANA, 1939** ## **WP(C).No. 11202 of 2017 (A)** ## **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER :** **---------------------** **M.SHERIF, S/O. MOHAMMED KANNU, AGED 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT PHOENIX, VETTUROAD, KANIYAPURAM P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 301.** **BY SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI,SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV.SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** **REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **2. A.P.J. ABDULKALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, TRIVANDRUM, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, A.P.J ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, CET CAMPUS, SREEKARIYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 016.** **3. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, A.P.J. ABDULKALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, CET CAMPUS, SREEKARIYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 016.** **R1 BY STATE ATTORNEY SRI.K.V.SOHAN BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.S.BREEZ R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC, KTU** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** **WP(C).No. 11202 of 2017 (A) ------------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** ## **---------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO. 1/2016/H.EDN. DATED 01/01/2016** - **EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE FIFTH EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE HELD ON 23/01/2016** - **EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. SPL. B2/12/2016-GAD DATED 22/01/2016** - **EXHIBIT-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER BEARING NO. HEDNJ3/14/2016-HEDN DATED 03/02/2016** - **EXHIBIT-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO. KTU/A/72/2016 DATED 04/02/2016** - **EXHIBIT-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE HELD ON 09/02/2016** - **EXHIBIT-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO. KTU/A/72/2016 DATED 12/02/2016** - **EXHIBIT-P8 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT) 552/2016/H.EDN. DATED 25/02/2016** - **EXHIBIT-P9 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT) 1376/2016/GAD DATED 29/02/2016** - **EXHIBIT-P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JOINING REPORT BY WHICH THE PETITIONER ASSUMED DUTY ON 29/02/2016** - **EXHIBIT-P11 TRUE COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER BEARING NO. KTU/A/72/2016 DATED 12/03/2016** - **EXHIBIT-P12 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT)NO. 558/2017/H.EDN. DATED 25/03/2017** - **EXHIBIT-P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO. KTU/A/72/2016 DATED 25/03/2017** - **EXHIBIT-P14 TRUE COPY OF THE EMPLOYMENT CERTIFICATE BEARING NO.2750/SPL.B3/2016/GAD DATED 2/2/2016** - **EXHIBIT-P15 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B4/4272/2016/RDD/HSE/KTM DATED 24/3/2017 OF THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM, REFERRED TO IN THE AFFIDAVIT** - **EXHIBIT-P16 TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 14/2/2017 ISSUED BY THE CORPORATE MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, PALAI TO SMT.PHILOMINA, REFERRED TO IN THE AFFIDAVIT** **2/-** **-2-** **WP(C).No. 11202 of 2017 (A)** **EXHIBIT-P17 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSOLIDATED NOTE FROM PARAGRAPHS 10 TO 18 OF THE FILE NO.69108/SPECIAL B2/2015/GAD ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER NO.174/SPECIAL B2/2017/LAD DATED 27/5/2017 ISSUED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, REFERRED TO IN THE ADDITIONAL REPLY AFFIDAVIT** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS AND ANNEXURES:** **--------------------------------------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT R2(A) COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1/1/2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT R2(B) COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3/2/2016** **ANNEXURE R1(A) COPY OF THE QUICK VERIFICATION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTICORRUPTION BUREAU, EASTERN RANGE KOTTAYAM DATED 31/07/2015** **ANNEXURE R1(B) COPY OF THE FORWARDING ENDORSEMENT SUBMITTED TO THE DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI- CORRUPTION BUREAU BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTICORRUPTION BUREAU, EASTERN RANGE KOTTAYAM DATED 31/08/2015** **ANNEXURE R1(C) COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED BY THE DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU DATED 12/10/2015 TO THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT** **ANNEXURE R1(D) COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19/10/2015 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, VIGILANCE (B) DEPARTMENT TO THE SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT ANNEXURE R1(E) COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12/11/2015 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (SPECIALB) DEPARTMENT ANNEXURE R1(F) COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 30/11/2015 ANNEXURE R1(G) COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES ALONG WITH STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS DATED 05/05/2016 SERVED ON THE PETITIONER ON 07/05/2016 ANNEXURE R1(H) COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 09/05/2016. /TRUE COPY/ sts P.S.TO JUDGE** ## _**P.V.ASHA, J.**_ -------------------------W.P(C) No.11202 of 2017-A ------------------------------------------- _Dated this the 17[th] day of August, 2017_ ## _**JUDGMENT**_ The petitioner, who was appointed as Senior Director (Administration/affiliation) of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (`University' for short), has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the orders Exts.P12 and P13 issued by the Government and the University respectively. 2. Immediately after the constitution of the University, in the year 2015, the Vice Chancellor submitted a proposal for sanctioning of posts for the University, as per his letters dated 11.3.2015 and 29.09.2015. Based on that Government issued Ext.P1 order on 1.1.2016 according sanction for creation of posts in 16 categories in the University campus and 15 categories for the University Headquarters, along the qualification, method of appointment, scale of pay as well as the number of posts in each of categories. Sl.No.10 among the categories of posts sanctioned for University Headquarters is 'Senior Director (Administration/Affiliation)'. Number of post sanctioned in the category of Senior Director 2 W.P(C) No.11202 of 2017-A (Administration/affiliation) was one; the qualifications prescribed are : 2 years' experience in the rank of and above that of Additional Secretary in Higher Education Department; the method of appointment is : direct appointment from qualified persons; scale of pay is : Rs.48640-59840 plus Rs.1000 special pay; the pay and allowances, retirement age and pensionary benefits of the employees from the University/Department who were appointed in the University through deputation/option are similar to that of their parent Universities/Departments; retirement age and pensionary benefits of those officers appointed by selection through direct recruitment were to be governed by G.O(P) No.469/2014/Fin. dated 31.10.2014. The 5[th] Executive Committee meeting of the University held on 23.1.2016 authorised the Vice Chancellor to constitute the Committee for selection of Senior Director (Administration & Affiliation) and Director (Finance)/ Audit/Accounts) by incorporating additional member from executive committee. The Vice Chancellor, the Pro Vice Chancellor, Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Director of Technical Education, Registrar of the University and 4 others including the petitioner were present in the meeting. Petitioner who was an additional secretary of Higher Education Department was a special invitee of the said Executive W.P(C) No.11202 of 2017-A 3 Committee. Thereafter, the General Administration (Special-B) Department issued a circular Ext.P3 on 22.1.2016 calling for willingness from the officers of and above the rank of Additional Secretary to Government in the Administrative Secretariat who have 2 years experience in Higher Education Department in Government Secretariat, for being considered for appointment as Senior Director (Administration/Affiliation) in the University in writing in that department within a week. By Ext.P4 letter dt.3.2.2016, the Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, forwarded the bio data and employment certificate of the petitioner to the Vice Chancellor of the University, informing that the petitioner was the only officer who fulfills the qualification and requesting to take steps to appoint him as Senior Director. In Ext.P5 order dt.4.2.2016 of the University it is stated that, the Vice Chancellor constituted a selection committee for appointment of Senior Director (Administration & Affiliation) (hereinafter referred to as 'Senior Director') and Director (Finance/Audit/Accounts) with the Vice Chancellor as Chairman, Sri B.Srinivas, Principal Secretary to Government Higher Education Department, Dr.K.Vijayakumar, Director of Technical Education Department, Dr. J.Latha, Vice Chancellor, CUSAT, Dr.V.Ramakrishnan, Director IISER, Dr.Bindhu G.R, Member, Executive 4 W.P(C) No.11202 of 2017-A Committee, Dr.Ajitha Bhaskar, Professor, College of Engineering as members and Dr.G.P.Padmakumar, Registrar as Convenor. Ext.P6 is the copy of the minutes of the selection committee which met on 9.2.2016 and decided to appoint the petitioner, subject to the clarifications issued by the Government. Thereafter, the University issued Ext.P7 order dt.12.2.2016 appointing the petitioner as Senior Director. The retirement age was stated to be 60 years as envisaged in the G.O dt.31.10.2014. It was further stated that the pensionary benefits till his retirement from State service would be borne by the State Government and remaining pensionary benefits if any would be met from the University. By Ext.P8 letter dated 25.2.2016, the Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, requested the Secretary to General Administration (Special-B) Department to take steps to relieve the petitioner w.e.f 29.2.2016, to enable him to take charge as Senior Director. Ext P8 letter refers to a note dt.15.2.2016 of the petitioner requesting to allow him to join the University on 29.02.2016 and to treat him on deputation for the period from 1.3.16 till his superannuation in the administrative secretariat and the subsequent period till his attaining the age of 60 years as direct appointment as provided in Ext.P1 order and to fix his pay for the period as per Rule 100 of Part III KSR. Government W.P(C) No.11202 of 2017-A 5 accordingly, by that order itself allowed the request directing that his appointment in the University for the period from 1.3.2016 to 30.4.2016 would be treated as deputation with eligibility for pay and allowances attached to the post of Additional Secretary to Government in the parent Department with benefit of pensionary benefits after 30.04.2016 from the State Government. It was also ordered that the period from 1.5.16 to 30.4.2020 would be considered as direct appointment for which the pay and allowance would be regulated under Rule 100 of Part III KSR. 3. Immediately thereafter the petitioner was relieved from the Higher Education Department as per Ext.P9 order and he joined duty in the University in the afternoon of 29.02.2016. The University thereafter issued Ext.P11 order on 12.03.2016 stating that the petitioner is appointed as Senior Director in the University w.e.f the afternoon of 29.2.2016 subject to the conditions stipulated in the orders Exts.P7 and P8. 4. While so, the Government issued Ext.P12 order on 25.3.2017 removing the petitioner from the post of Senior Director of the University. The reason stated is that while the petitioner was a Government nominee for selection of HSST (Malayalam) conducted by the corporate educational agency, Diocese of Pala, he had failed to select the eligible and deserving W.P(C) No.11202 of 2017-A 6 candidates as per norms which resulted in the selection of an ineligible/undeserving candidate. Based on the quick verification report of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (V&ACB), the Vigilance Dept. had recommended to take suitable action against the petitioner. The further reason stated was that the appointment of the petitioner involving deputation and appointment on re-employment was not taken at the appropriate level as stipulated in Rule 45(1) of the Rules of Business. Government found that disciplinary action was pending against the petitioner at the time when his appointment was made and moreover it was in violation of Rule 45(1) of the Rules of Business and therefore it was inappropriate to allow him to continue in the post. Consequent to the order of the Government, the University issued Ext.P13 order on 25.3.2017, removing the petitioner from the post, in implementation of the direction issued by the Government to the Registrar and the Vice Chancellor. This writ petition was filed at this stage pointing out that his removal was ordered without even issuing a notice to him. According to him, no disciplinary proceedings were pending against him and there is no basis for the quick verification report and no such report is furnished with notice to him. It is also his case that the Government has no 7 W.P(C) No.11202 of 2017-A authority to take any action against him. 5. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed separate statements/counter affidavits and the petitioner has filed reply affidavit. 6. In the statement filed by the 1[st] respondent it is stated that while the petitioner was working as Additional Secretary, Higher Education Department, he was deputed as Government nominee in the selection committee for appointment of HSST (Malayalam) under the Corporate Educational Agency, Diocese of Pala; he denied appointment to Smt.Philomina Sebastian as HSST, who was the rightful person; the V&ACB initiated an enquiry and in Annexure-R1(a) quick verification report, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, V&ACB on 31.7.2015, reported that the allegation regarding the denial of appointment to Smt.Philomina Sebastian was genuine and that the petitioner had committed serious lapse in verifying the suitability of the candidate. He recommended appropriate action against the petitioner. The Superintendent of Police, V&ACB, Eastern Range, Kottayam as per Ext.R1(b) letter agreed with the recommendation to take suitable action against the petitioner, as per his endorsement dt.31.8.2015. The Director, V&ACB thereafter addressed the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Vigilance Department on 8 W.P(C) No.11202 of 2017-A 8 12.10.2015 as per Ext.R1(c) letter recommending suitable action against the petitioner. As per Ext.R1(d) letter dt.19.10.15, the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Vigilance (B) Department forwarded the report to the Secretary, General Administration (Spl.B) Department along with a request to take suitable action as envisaged in G.O(P)46/97/Vig dated 31.7.1997 and instructions in circular No.11855/E3/08/Vig. dt.7.1.2010. It is stated that pursuant to Ext.R1(d) report, the Secretary to Government, General Administration (Spl.B) Department issued a letter to the petitioner on 12.11.2015 calling for his explanation regarding the allegations and the petitioner submitted Ext.R1(f) explanation on 30.11.2015. Thereafter, Ext.R1(e) letter and the explanation Ext.R1(f) were circulated among the Departments. But the Vigilance Department raised an objection to the effect that disciplinary action has to be initiated by serving memo of charges along with statement of allegations. The administrative department was requested to finalise the disciplinary action as laid down in Kerala Civil Service (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960. Thereafter, Annexure-R1 (g) memo of charges dated 05.05.2016 was served on the petitioner and the petitioner thereafter submitted Ext.R1(h) reply on 09.05.2016. The General Education Department found that his explanation was not satisfactory and 9 W.P(C) No.11202 of 2017-A requested the General Administration (Special Cell B) Department to take appropriate final decision. Therefore, it is stated that the petitioner has been facing disciplinary action. It is the further case that the petitioner himself was instrumental for his selection and appointment including the framing of Ext.P1 Rules, fixing the qualification for the post of Senior Director tailor made to render him alone eligible; moreover when the only method of appointment to fill up the vacancy in Ext.P1 is direct appointment, he got Ext.P8 order, in violation of Rule 45 (1) of the Rules of Business and suppressing all the proceedings against him, while submitting application at a time when he was facing disciplinary action. According to the 1[st] respondent, the petitioner played fraud by misusing his official position. 7. Along with the reply affidavit the petitioner has produced some additional materials to show that Smt.Philomina, whose selection was found to be irregular, was given appointment subsequently and that the appointment of the teacher selected by the alleged selection committee was not approved and therefore no loss was caused to her. It is also pointed out that as per Annexure-R1(c) letter, the Superintendent of Police has sought for his explanation against the allegations contained in Ext.R1(c) and the W.P(C) No.11202 of 2017-A 10 petitioner had submitted its reply. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of inviting applications for appointment of Senior Director, no vigilance case was pending against him. 8. The learned Standing Counsel for the University submitted that the post of Senior Director is not one covered by any of the University statutes or the UGC Regulations and the Government created the post and made the appointment and the University did not have any say in the matter. 9. The Counter affidavit of the University would show that the appointment of the petitioner was made on directions from the Government and termination also was ordered in tune with the direction of Government. It is pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the University that the post held by the petitioner is not covered by the University Statutes and such a post is not one available in any of the Universities or UGC. 10. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit refuting the contentions in the statement. According to him, the then Chief Minister had accepted his explanation Ext.R1(f) on 18.1.2016 and no further action was taken on it. Thereafter even though Ext.R1(g) memo of charges was issued to him on 5.5.2016 after his retirement from Government service, while he was working in the University, he had submitted Ext.R1(h) reply to it on W.P(C) No.11202 of 2017-A 11 9.05.2016 and thereafter there was no further action. According to him, the allegation that he suppressed the pendency of the vigilance case against him, while submitting his application is not correct as there was no vigilance case pending against him at any point of time and no FIR was lodged against him even after the quick verification report; he denied the allegation of suppression and of playing fraud. It is his case that the Secretary of General Administration Department had recommended to drop further action against the petitioner. But the Secretary P&ARD ordered to initiate disciplinary action. According to him, since no action is recommended or taken against the Chairman and Convenor of the selection committee, who are the Manager and Principal of the school, there is no basis for action against him alone in the matter of selection to the post of HSST. The petitioner points out that on 22.03.2017, he had requested for a hearing, but he was not given a hearing even after the orders Exts.P12 and P13 were issued. It is his further case that there was no consultation with the Finance Department before taking any action against him. Along with I.A.No.8486/2017, the petitioner has produced Exts.P15 and P16 orders by which Smt.Philomina Sebastian was appointed as HSST Malayalam in St.Thomas HSS, Pala from 14.2.2017. She was appointed as per Ext.P16 W.P(C) No.11202 of 2017-A 12 order dt.14.2.2017 on the basis of the judgment dt.9.1.2017 in W.P.(C) No.9106 of 2017 and her appointment was approved as per Ext.P15 order dated 24.3.2017. According to the petitioner, at the time when Ext.P12 order was issued, Smt.Philomina Sebastian was already appointed as HSST. 11. I heard Sri. K.P Dandapani, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. K.V.Sohan, the learned State Attorney for 1[st] respondent and Sri. Krishnamoorthy, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3. 12. The complaint against the petitioner, covered by Ext.R1(a) to (f) was in respect of the selection made to the post of HSST which resulted in the denial of timely appointment to Smt.Philomina on account of the irregularities committed by selection committee held on 12.07.2014, in which the petitioner was the Government nominee. Exts.R1(a) to R1(f) correspondence were made while the petitioner was working as Additional Secretary and well before the posts were sanctioned in the University and applications were called for. However Ext.R1(g) memo of charge was issued on 05.05.2016, when he was working in the University. The allegation in this also relates to the selection of a B.Ed holder in Natural Science for appointment as HSST Malayalam, contrary to the provisions in Chapter XXXII KER. He has submitted his reply on 09.05.2016. The 13 W.P(C) No.11202 of 2017-A petitioner is not informed of any further action on it. The orders Exts.P12 and P13 come thereafter about more than 10 months of the memo of charge. There is no reference to even that memo of charge in the order Ext.P12, though the allegations raised in that memo of charges are available. But apart from those allegations Ext.P12 order contains further allegations relating to violation of Rule 45(1) of the Rules of Business as well as pendency of disciplinary action against the petitioner at the time he submitted application/willingness for appointment in the University. The memo of charge Ext.R1(g) was issued subsequent to the retirement of the petitioner on 30.04.2016, that too under the Kerala Civill Service (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960. At any rate, even that memo of charge does not contain any allegation relating to any suppression of facts while submitting application for appointment in the University or the pendency of disciplinary proceedings against him at the relevant time. It does not contain any allegation regarding violation of the provisions contained in the Rules of Business. Ext.R1(g) memo of charge, by itself cannot result in removal of the petitioner from service. Even though the disciplinary action was proposed under KCS(CC&A) Rules, 1960, the order of removal is issued without taking any further proceedings, if at all it was 14 W.P(C) No.11202 of 2017-A permissible. At any rate, there is not even a notice regarding the suppression as to the disciplinary action or the violation of Rule 45(1) of rules of Business. Therefore, this is a clear case where the order of removal is issued without notice. 13. The petitioner joined the new post of Senior Director & Administrator on 29.02.2016. Exts.P12 and P13 orders were passed on 25.03.2017. If the respondents found anything wrong in the appointment of the petitioner, it was upto the competent authority to intimate the same to the petitioner and seek his explanation, on the proposed action, if any, instead of abruptly removing him from service. The University as well as the Government, who chose to issue orders of appointment as well as orders of termination, are expected to be model employers. They are bound to adopt a fair and just procedure consistent with the principles of natural justice. The bare minimum principles of natural justice required the respondents to act in fairness and put the petitioner on notice on the illegality they found in his appointment. It is the basic requirement of the respondents to afford an opportunity of hearing to any person before the extreme action like removal from service was ordered. The manner in which the order of removal is issued, would show the arbitrary exercise of W.P(C) No.11202 of 2017-A 15 power in violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is settled law by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court like **Maneka Gandhi V Union of India : (1978) 1 SCC 248, S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, (1980) 4 SCC 379, AIR 1981 SC 136, Delhi Transport Corpn. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress, 1991** **Supp (1) SCC 600, etc that** natural justice, which is the antithesis of arbitrariness is a requirement of Article 14. It is well settled that any action of an employer against an employee must be fair, just and reasonable and there cannot be any conferment of absolute power to terminate the services of an employee, even when there are rules for the same. When the principles of natural justice is an integral part of the guarantee of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the action of the respondents is liable to be struck down. In this view of the matter, I am of the view that it is unnecessary to go into the other contentions which according to the respondents resulted in the impugned orders. 14. The allegation against the petitioner is that he suppressed the pendency of the vigilance case when he submitted his application for appointment. According to the learned State Attorney, the judgment of the Apex Court in **Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors** [(2016) 8 SCC 471] W.P(C) No.11202 of 2017-A 16 squarely applies in this case and therefore removal of the petitioner from the service is justified. Even assuming that there was any vigilance case or inquiry or investigation against the petitioner that will not justify a removal from service in this manner. 15. As I am setting aside the impugned orders, I am not going into the other allegations raised against the petitioner or the applicability of the judgment in **Avatar Singh** 's case ( _supra_ ). Therefore, I quash Exts.P12 and P13 orders. The petitioner shall be entitled to re-instatement with all consequential benefits. It is made clear that this will not prevent the respondents from taking any action against the petitioner in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. **Sd/-** _**(P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)**_ _rtr/_