Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is a Deputy Collector in the service of the Government of Kerala in its Revenue Department. In this original petition he prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P3 proceedings of the Board of Revenue, Trivandrum, and Ext. P5 order of the Government of Kerala confirming Ext P3. 2. The petitioner while serving as a Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Ernakulam, was served with a memo of charges dated 6-6-1978, a copy of which is produced in this O. P. as Ext. P1. The charges against the petitioner contained in Ex.P1 are as follows: 'T That you Sri. C. Ramankutty Warrier, Deputy Collector (LA) Ernakulam was seen fully intoxicated near the Thampanoor Bus Station at midnight on 16*3-1978 and behaved in a disorderly manner towards the public under the influence of liquor. 2. Your action described above is in violation of R.93 (B) (b) of the Kerala Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1960". The petitioner was required to show cause why disciplinary action as contemplated under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) R.1960 should not be taken against him. He was allowed 15 days time to submit his written statement of defence. He submitted his explanation a copy of which is produced as Ext. P2. In Ext. P2 be denied the charges against him and stated that he was at Trivandrum on 16-3-1978 in connection with a personal matter, and had gone to the residence of his friend Sri. M. Kesava Das, a retired Addl. Director of Agriculture. The petitioner had his food at his house. He had to take the friend to the Aryavaidyasala branch at Trivandrum and after consulting the physician there had to take the friend back to his house at Manacaud. After spending some time with the friend he engaged an autorickshaw for proceeding to his room at the Vinayaka Lodge near Aristo Junction. It was past midnight when he was proceeding to his lodge. While on his way to the Vinayaka Lodge, a Police Officer in mufty stopped the autorickshaw and required the petitioner to explain where he was going at that untimely hour. The Police Officer did not believe the petitioner when he stated that be is a Deputy Collector and was on his way to bis room in the lodge. While on his way to the Vinayaka Lodge, a Police Officer in mufty stopped the autorickshaw and required the petitioner to explain where he was going at that untimely hour. The Police Officer did not believe the petitioner when he stated that be is a Deputy Collector and was on his way to bis room in the lodge. The Police Officer in mufty caught hold of the petitioner and took him to the police-aid-post at the K.S.R.T.C. Bus Station, Thampanoor. The petitioner was manhandled at the aid post, in spite of bis statement that he was a Deputy Collector and that the Police Officer would be in trouble for harassing him. The Officer appeared to be afraid of the consequences of his action and took the petitioner to a doctor to obtain a certificate that the petitioner was under the influence of liquor with a view to foist a case against him, apparently to protect the Officer himself. The petitioner was in deep mental agony and humiliation on account of the treatment meted out to him. The Medical Officer issued a certificate to oblige the Police Officer. The petitioner was not subjected to any physical examination by the Medical Officer Nor was his blood or urine taken for chemical examination. The petitioner did not prefer any complaint against the highhanded action of the Sub Inspector for fear of publicity of the humiliation suffered by him. For these reasons explained in Ext P2 he prayed for dropping the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. 3. The Board of Revenue. Trivandrum passed an order Ext. P3 dated 17-1-1979 without any further enquiry into the charges against the petitioner. The relevant portion of the order of the Board of Revenue is extracted below: "The Board has gone through the explanation and came to the conclusion that even though the physical examination has not been conducted the details furnished in the Medical certificate issued by the Assistant Surgeon of the General Hospital, Trivandrum are enough to prove that he was fully intoxicated. Further, if an innocent man was insulted by the police as contended by him, being a responsible officer, he should have filed a complaint against the highhandedness of the Police Officer before the authorities concerned. This has not been done by him. The Board therefore finds that the charges have been proved In the circumstances, the Board orders that the increment of Sri. This has not been done by him. The Board therefore finds that the charges have been proved In the circumstances, the Board orders that the increment of Sri. C. Ramankutty Warrier, Deputy Collector (LA) Ernakulam be barred for three years with cumulative effect". 4. Ext. P4 appeal filed by the petitioner before the Government was rejected as per Ext. P5 order dated 7-7-1979. In the concluding portion of Ext. PS order, it is held that the charges against the petitioner have been proved and the punishment of withholding increment for three years with cumulative effect awarded by the Board of Revenue is legal and justified. It is further stated: "Government do not see any procedural irregularity in the disciplinary action. There is no case for the interference of Government in the matter. The appeal petition of Shri. C. Ramankutty Warrier is therefore rejected and he is informed accordingly." It is against these orders that the petitioner seeks relief in this writ petition. 5. The impugned Orders Exts. P3 and P5 are attacked as insolation of the principles of natural justice. The Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the punishment awarded being a minor penalty under Clause (3) of sub-rule (I) of R.11 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, no detailed enquiry is contemplated and the procedure adopted by the Board of Revenue is in conformity with R.16. R.16 is extracted below: "16. Procedure for imposing minor penalties (1) No order imposing my of the penalties specified in items (1) to (iv) of R.11 (1) shall be passed except after, (a) the Government servant is informed in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the allegations on which it is proposed to be taken and given opportunity to make any representation be maywish to make; (b) such representation, if any, is taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority; and (c) the Commission is consulted in cases where such consultation in necessary-(2) The record of proceedings in such cases shall include. (i) a copy of the intimation to the Government Servant of the proposal to take action against him; (ii) a copy of the statement of allegations communicated to him; (iii) his representation, if any; (iv) the advice of the Commission, if any; and (v) the orders of the case together with the reasons therefor." 6. (i) a copy of the intimation to the Government Servant of the proposal to take action against him; (ii) a copy of the statement of allegations communicated to him; (iii) his representation, if any; (iv) the advice of the Commission, if any; and (v) the orders of the case together with the reasons therefor." 6. It cannot be said that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner is in violation of R.16. The petitioner was given an opportunity to make his representation and the representation is seen taken into consideration in the impugned order Ext.P3. 7. It is however not disputed that the medical certificate on the basis of which the petitioner is found guilty of drunkenness and disorderly behaviour in a public place was not disclosed to the petitioner, nor was the medical officer examined to afford the petitioner an opportunity to cross-examine him. The driver of the autorickshaw was also not examined. There was no enquiry at all into the charges against the petitioner. Ext. P3 order itself shows that no physical examination of the petitioner was conducted by the Medical Officer who issued the medical certificate. The petitioner had no opportunity to substantiate his defence in his representation Ext. P2. 8. The question for consideration before me is as to whether the impugned orders Exts. P3 and P5 imposing only a minor penalty on the petitioner should be sustained as in conformity with the requirement of R.16 or whether these orders are to be quashed as violative of the principles of natural justice. As per the orders impugned, the petitioner is found guilty of an offence that falls under S.268 of the IPC. It is an offence punishable under S.290 IPC. As per S.51 of the Kerala Police Act, whoever in any street or public place or in any court, police station or other public office or in any place of public amusement or resort or on board any passenger boat or vessel or in any public passenger vehicle, is found drunk and incapable of taking care of himself or behaves in a disorderly manner under the influence of drink shall, on conviction, be punished for a first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month and with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees. The proviso to clause (a) of S.51 states that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the judgment of the court, such imprisonment shall not be less than fifteen days and fine shall not be less than fifty rupees. The offence found against the petitioner in Ext. P3 is one that falls also under S.51 of the Kerala Police Act, punishable with imprisonment and fine as aforesaid. There can therefore be no doubt that the impugned orders Exts.P3 and P5 cast a stigma on the character of the petitioner in finding him guilty of an offence punishable as aforesaid and involving moral turpitude. 9. I am of the view that the findings entered in the impugned orders in violation of the principles of natural justice cannot be allowed to stand merely for the reason that the punishment imposed is a minor penalty under R.11 of the K.C.S. (C.C.& A) Rules which does not prescribe an elaborate enquiry for she imposition of a minor penalty. The offence found against the petitioner is one for which a major penalty can be imposed, after a detailed enquiry as contemplated by R.15 of the Rules. The imposition of a minor penalty cannot be expedient to dispense with a detailed enquiry under R.15 before a Government servant is found guilty of a grave offence involving moral turpitude. 10. In the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill's case ( (1978) 1 SCC. 405) it is stated thus at page 432:- "43 Indeed, natural justice is a pervasive facet of secular law where a spiritual touch enlivens legislation, administration and adjudication, to make fairness a creed of life. It has many colours and shades, many forms and shapes and, save where valid law excludes it. applies when people are affected by acts of Authority. It is the bone of healthy Government, recognised from earliest times and not a mystic testament of judge made law. Indeed, from the legendary days of Adam and of Kautilya's Arthasastra the rule of law has had this stamp of natural justice which makes it social justice. applies when people are affected by acts of Authority. It is the bone of healthy Government, recognised from earliest times and not a mystic testament of judge made law. Indeed, from the legendary days of Adam and of Kautilya's Arthasastra the rule of law has had this stamp of natural justice which makes it social justice. We need not go into these deeps for the present except to indicate that the roots of natural justice and its foliage are noble and not new-fangled, Today its application must be sustained by current legislation, case-law or other extant principle, not the hoary chords of legend and history. Our jurisprudence has sanctioned its prevalence even like the Anglo American system. 44. The dichotomy between administrative and quasi-judicial functions vis-a-vis the doctrine of natural justice is presumably obsolescent after Kraipak (1970(1) SCR. 457) in India and Schmidt (1969 (2) Ch. 149) in England. 45. Kraipak marks the watershed, if we may say so, in the application of natural justice to administrative proceedings. Hegde, I., speaking for a Bench of five judges observed, quoting for support Lord Parker in In re H. K. (an infant) (1967 (2) Q. B. 617,630): It is not necessary to examine these decisions as there is a great deal of fresh thinking on the subject. The horizon of natural justice is constantly expanding. In Mrs Maneka Gandhi's case (1978 (1) SCC. 248), the Supreme Court states at page 285 thus: "Thus the soul of natural justice is 'fairplay in action' and that is why it has received the widest recognition throughout the democratic world". It is again stated at page 287, after considering the various decisions of the English Courts and the Supreme Court referred to therein: "the net effect of these and other decisions was that the duty to act judicially need not be super-added, but it may be spelt out from the nature of the power conferred, the manner of exercising it and its impact on the rights of the person affected and where it is found to exist, the rules of natural justice would be attracted. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders Exts. P3 and P5 cannot be sustained. These orders are accordingly quashed and the writ petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.