V. SRIDHARAN NAIR versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

Citation: [1986] 3 S.C.R. 1098 · Decided: 19-09-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. KHALID, G.L. OZA · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
' 
V. SRIDHARAN NAIR 
v. 
B 
STATE OF KERALA & ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 19, 1986 
[V. KHALID AND G.L. OZA, JJ.] 
Kera/a Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 
C 
1960;-Rules 9(a) and 24-0fficer's lien on post-When can be 
terminated. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
CIVIL SERVICES 
Lien-Termination of-Procedure laid down in service _Rules-
Necessity for compliance. 
The petitioner a Laboratory Attendant in an Arts College under 
the Department of Collegiate Edncation was deputed to the City 
Improvement Trust, for a period of two years. He was relieved of his 
duties with effect from 30. 10.61, by the Department of Collegiate 
Edncation. His deputation period was extended for a further period of one 
year from I. II .63 and for a further period of two years with effect 
from J. ll.64. In the last order extending the period of deputation it was 
made clear that .no further extension beyond 31.10.66 would be 
allowed. 
While the petitioner was on deputation be was promoted as Upper 
Division Clerk in the City Improvement Trust. He made a representa· 
tion on 3.9.66 requesting the State Government to allow him to continue 
in the City Improvement Trust, terminating his lien in the Collegiate 
Education Department. No orders were Pl!SS<d by the Directorate of 
Collegiate Education or by the Government on this representation. 
While the petitioner was continuing on deputation in the City 
Improvement Trust, the Trust was merged with the State Housing 
Board, respondent No.3. On 29.3.72 orders were passed under Rule 24 
of the Kerala Service Rules terminating the lien of the petitioner in the 
Department of Collegiate Education. 
1098 
) 
V. S. NAIR v. STA1E OF KERALA & ORS. 
1099 
A Show-cause notice was issued by the Directorate of Collegiate 
Education on 21.3. 73 asking the petitioner to submit his explanation 
against the proposed removal of his lien in that department. The · 
petitioner submitted a representation stating that he was not at fault in 
not joining duty in the parent department, and that he was retained in 
foreign service anticipating Government's orders, and that he was not 
interested in continuing on deputation, and that the period after 1.11.66 
may be treated as .an extension of the deputation period. The explana-
tion was not accepted and orders were passed terminating the lien of the 
petitioner. 
The petitioner assailed the aforesaid order terminating his lien in 
a Writ Petition to this Court. 
Allowing the Writ Petition, 
A 
B 
c 
HELD: 1. The Order terminating the petitioner's lien in the in-
stant case is passed on the specious plea that his explanation is not satisfac-
D 
tory. The order should have _been more articulate in its content. [1103C] 
2. Rule 19(a) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control 
and Appeal) Rules 1%0 mandates that an officer's lien on a post shall 
not be terminated even with his consent if the consequence is to leave him 
without a lien or a suspended lien up<in a permanent post. Rule 24 
E 
speaks of removal from the service when an officer has been continu-
ously absent from duty for five years, of special circumstances which 
will enable the department concerned to save an officer from its vice. 
and of the necessity to follow the procedure laid down in the Rules 
for removal of an officer from service. [1102B-C.; F-Hl 
3. Without specific orders, the petitioner could not abandon the 
deputed foreign service and join the parent department. There should 
be a clear finding of contiit~ous absence from duty by the Department · 
to attract Rule 24. The department also has to satisfy the Court whether 
F 
the special circumstances of this case would not rescue the petitioner 
frcim the rigour of Rule 24, and that the procedure laid down in the 
G 
Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control aud Appeal) Rules, 1960 
is complied with. [I 103B-C] 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 3832 of 1978 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) 
H 
llllO 
SUPREME COURT REPbRTS 
[1986] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
J. Ramamurthi for the Petitioner. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
V .J. Francis for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KHALID, J. The petitioner was a Laboratory Attendent in the 
University lntermediate College (now called Arts College), Trivan-
drum in the Collegiate Education Department. He was deputed to the 
City Improvement Trust as per Government Order dated 24-10-61. 
The period of deputation was two years from the date of the Order or 
from 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.