Judgment :- 1. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner while he was working as Regional Transport Officer (hereinafter referred to as R.T.O.). Idukki under R.13 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 (for short 'the Rules') with a proposal to impose a major punishment. He gave explanation in regard to each of the charges and demanded a detailed inquiry. Then District Collector, Idukki was appointed as Inquiry Authority. Inquiry was conducted in the presence of the petitioner and his advocate. Inquiry authority prepared his report recording findings against the petitioner and submitted papers connected with the inquiry to the State Government, which, on a consideration of the inquiry report and other relevant records, accepted the findings and taking a lenient view, imposed a minor penalty of withholding of increment for one year without cumulative effect under Ext. PI order. During the period of inquiry, for some time, the petitioner was kept under suspension. Ext. P1 order was followed by Ext. P5 order stating that the period of suspension will be treated as duty for the limited purpose of pension only and bis pay and allowances for the suspension period will be limited to 30% less subsistance allowance admissible under the Rules. The legality of Exts. P1 and P5 is challenged in this original petition filed under Art.226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions: (a) Imposition of penalty without supplying a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner and without hearing him in the matter of penalty as contemplated under R.15 of the Rules is illegal. (b) That there is total lack of evidence in support of any one of the charges levelled against the petitioner. (c) That the appointment as Inquiry Officer of District Collector. Idukki, who himself bad submitted a report to the Government against the misconduct of the petitioner, caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. (d) In any view of the case, Ext. P5 order was unjustified. 3. Rule H of the Rules explains the nature of penalties which could be imposed on a government servant. Penalties shown in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-rule (i) of R.11 are minor penalties, while penalties shown in clauses (v) to (ix) of that sub-rule are major penalties. R.15 lays down the procedure for imposing major penalties. 3. Rule H of the Rules explains the nature of penalties which could be imposed on a government servant. Penalties shown in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-rule (i) of R.11 are minor penalties, while penalties shown in clauses (v) to (ix) of that sub-rule are major penalties. R.15 lays down the procedure for imposing major penalties. R.16 lays down the procedure for imposing minor penalties. In a case governed by R.15, on satisfaction regarding the existence of a prima facie case for taking action, the authority concerned has to frame a definite charge or charges, communicate the same to the government servant concerned together with statement of allegations on which each charge is based and of any other circumstances which it is proposed to take into consideration in passing orders on the case. The government servant shall be required to submit within reasonable time to be specified in that behalf, a written statement of his defence and also to state whether he desires to be heard in person. His request for permission to peruse or take extracts from the records should normally be allowed. On receipt of the written statement it is open to the authority concerned to hold a formal inquiry. The procedure for inquiry and the authority to conduct inquiry is dealt with in clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of R.15. It must also follow that when the government servant insists on a hearing in person, the authority concerned must hear him in person. The procedure for inquiry is given in the succeeding sub-rules of R.15. In the case of a formal inquiry, the inquiring authority, after due inquiry as contemplated in the rule, has to prepare a report of inquiry recording its findings on each of the charges together with reasons therefor and the records of the inquiry must be submitted to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority has to consider the record of enquiry and record its finding on each charge, where such authority is not the Government. If the disciplinary authority is the Government, it shall consider the record of inquiry and deal with the same in accordance with sub-rule (11) of R.15. Sub-rule (12) of R.15 deals with the manner in which any major penalty is to be imposed. If the disciplinary authority is the Government, it shall consider the record of inquiry and deal with the same in accordance with sub-rule (11) of R.15. Sub-rule (12) of R.15 deals with the manner in which any major penalty is to be imposed. It can be imposed only after furnishing to the government servant concerned a copy of the inquiry report and where the disciplinary authority is not the inquiring authority, a statement of its findings together with brief reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of the Inquiring Authority should be furnished to the government servant, and after giving him a notice stating the action proposed to be taken in regard to him and calling upon him to submit within a specified time which may not generally exceed one month such representation as he may wish to make against the proposed action; on consideration of the representation and advice of the Public Service Commission in cases where such advice is necessary, the disciplinary authority must determine what penalty, if any, should be imposed on the government servant and pass appropriate orders. Sub-rule (13) of R.15 deals with cases where minor penalty is proposed to be imposed in a proceeding which started under R.13, as if it is a proceeding for imposing major penalty. Sub-rule (13) does not state that a copy of the inquiry report must be furnished to the government servant or that he must be given an opportunity to make a representation against the proposed action or that such representation must be considered before imposing such minor penalty. Sub-rule (13) only states that if the disciplinary authority, having regard to its findings, is of the opinion that any minor penalty is to be imposed, it shall pass appropriate orders on the case. - 4. R.16 deals with procedure for imposing of minor penalties. Before imposing minor penalties it is required that the government servant should be informed in writing of the proposal to take action against him and to give him an opportunity to make a representation and such representation is to be taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority. - 4. R.16 deals with procedure for imposing of minor penalties. Before imposing minor penalties it is required that the government servant should be informed in writing of the proposal to take action against him and to give him an opportunity to make a representation and such representation is to be taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority. R.16 does not contemplate a formal inquiry or preparation of inquiry report or recording of findings in such inquiry report, or furnishing copy of the inquiry report to the government servant or giving him an opportunity to make representation in regard to the proposed action in the light of the inquiry report or consideration of any such representation before imposing minor penalty. He can represent against the proposal in the show-cause notice and is entitled to have his representation considered. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that where the ultimate penalty imposed is only minor penalty, if the proceedings had commenced under R.15 and not under R.16, it is incumbent on the disciplinary authority to supply copy of the inquiry report to the government servant and to give him an opportunity to make a representation and the disciplinary authority has to consider such representation as contemplated in sub-rule (12) of R.15 of the Rules. This argument does not stand legal scrutiny. There is a definite scheme and pattern behind R.15 and 16. Broadly speaking, R.15 deals with procedure for the imposition of major penalty, while R.16 deals with procedure for imposing minor penalties. Reading the two rules together, there can be no doubt that is a proceeding commencing under R.16 only a minor penalty can be imposed and not a major penalty. But, in a proceeding commencing under R.15, disciplinary authority or the Government, as the case may be, has choice of two courses in the matter of imposition of penalty. It is open to the authority to follow the mandate of sub-rule (12) and in appropriate cases, impose major penalty. But, in a proceeding commencing under R.15, disciplinary authority or the Government, as the case may be, has choice of two courses in the matter of imposition of penalty. It is open to the authority to follow the mandate of sub-rule (12) and in appropriate cases, impose major penalty. It is also open to the authority to refrain from following the procedure provided under sub-rule (12) but to follow the procedure laid down in sub-rule (13) of R.15 of the Rules and to impose only a minor penalty Difference between sub-rules (12) and (13) of R.15 indicate the difference between the procedures to be followed in the matter of imposition of major and minor penalties in a proceeding commencing under R.15 of the Rules. The procedure prescribed in sub-rule (13) is analogous, so to say, to the procedure prescribed in R.16. R.16 as well as sub-rule (13) of R.15 contemplate only grant of one opportunity to the government servant concerned and that opportunity is to make a representation in regard to the charges framed against him of the show-cause notice. The right of the government servant in such cases is to ensure that his representation is considered before the disciplinary authority imposes minor penalty. But, where ultimately major penalty is to be imposed, the government servant has the right to insist on two opportunities as the rules stand now. The rules have not been amended even though Art.311(2) of the Constitution has been amended. As the rules stand now, before a major penalty can be actually imposed on a government servant, be has to receive two opportunities, one to submit a written statement of defence in answer to the charges and the other to submit representation in regard to the penalty proposed to be imposed on him in the light of the findings in the inquiry report and he can also insist on being furnished with a copy of the report. 5A. 5A. Understanding R.15 and 16 in the light of the broad scheme as explained above, it is clear that where a proceeding for imposition of major penalty is commenced against a government servant under R.15 of the Rules and an inquiry report is submitted, if the disciplinary authority or the government, as the case may be, is of the opinion that it is a fit case to impose only a minor penalty and not a major penalty, that authority is to follow the procedure prescribed in sub-rule (13) of R.15 and not the procedure prescribed under sub-rule (12). Consequently, it must follow that in such a case the government servant has no right to insist on being furnished with a copy of the inquiry report or being given an opportunity to make representation against the proposed action on the basis of the findings in the inquiry report and the evidence adduced during the inquiry. The present is the case, where the proceedings were initiated under R.15 as if it was proposed to impose a major penalty and after considering the inquiry report and the other circumstances in the case, the Government thought it fit to impose only a minor penalty. That being so, there is no illegality in the government not furnishing a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner or in not giving him an opportunity once again to make a representation regarding the proposed action. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner strongly relied on the decision of this court reported in Surendra Sen v. Director of Survey & Land Records and others (1975 KLT. 582). The petitioner in that case was faced with proceedings under R.15 of the Rules with the proposal to impose a major penalty on him. He submitted a written statement of defence and demanded to be heard in person. The authority concerned did not give him a hearing, but proceeded to pass an order imposing only a minor penalty. It has to be noticed that, in doing so, the procedure contemplated in R.15 upto the stage of finding the government servant concerned guilty of charge was not followed. The authority concerned did not give him a hearing, but proceeded to pass an order imposing only a minor penalty. It has to be noticed that, in doing so, the procedure contemplated in R.15 upto the stage of finding the government servant concerned guilty of charge was not followed. We have already noticed that in a disciplinary proceeding initiated under R.15, where the government servant insists on being beard in person and where the inquiry authority does not think it necessary to arrange a formal inquiry, it is necessary to hear the government servant in person. Without such a hearing the charges could not be found against him. In Surendra Sen's case, though the government servant insisted on being heard in person, he was not so heard nor was a formal inquiry conducted. But, instead, he was found guilty without hearing him and without conducting an inquiry. In other words, the stage contemplated under sub-rule 11 of R.15 was reached in violation of the provisions of that rule. Sub-rule(11) states that the authority shall consider the record of inquiry and record its findings on each charge. In a case where there is no formal inquiry, but there is only a hearing of the government servant concerned, the same principle will apply. In the one case, the government servant has to be heard in person. In the other case, a formal inquiry must be conducted in the presence of the government servant. Then only the stage of recording, finding or acceptance of the finding will arise. The stage contemplated in sub-rule (12) of R.15 arises only thereafter. In Surendra Sen's case finding was recorded against the government servant without conducting a formal inquiry and without hearing the government servant, inspite of his demand for such personal hearing and it was on the basis of such illegality that Khalid, J. quashed the order imposing penalty which was impugned in that case. 7. In Surendra Sen's case, the court adverted to the question whether disciplinary authority can after initiating action under R.15 change its mind subsequently and propose to impose a minor penalty and the court observed that the position is not free from doubt. The court did not give any decision on that question. In the unreported decision of a Division Bench of this court, referred to in Surendra Sen's case, also the above question was not decided but left open. 8. The court did not give any decision on that question. In the unreported decision of a Division Bench of this court, referred to in Surendra Sen's case, also the above question was not decided but left open. 8. Looking at the scheme and pattern of R.15 and 16 as indicated above, I am of the view that even if a proceeding is commenced under R.15 with a proposal to impose a major penalty, after recording findings, it is open to the disciplinary authority or the Government, as the case may be, to proceed either under sub-rule (12) or under sub-rule (13) of R.15. One may say that the procedure under sub-rule (13) of R.15 is analogous to the procedure under R.16 of the Rules. The point to be noted is that after recording findings under R.15, it is open to the disciplinary authority, or the govern-ment, to impose only a minor penalty on the government servant concerned without hearing the government servant once again and without furnishing him a copy of the inquiry report. Such a procedure is sanctioned by sub-rule (13) of R.15 and the same is not contra indicated by anything contained in R.16 of the Rules. I, therefore, overrule the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and hold that Ext. P1 does not suffer from any illegality. 9.The next submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is total lack of evidence in support of the findings. I have been taken though the Memo of charges, the explanation submitted by the government servant and the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the case. It is difficult to agree with the petitioner when he says that there is no evidence in support of any of the charges. There is evidence in support of every one of the charges. In this view, I do not want to embark further upon this argument except to say that the records placed before the court bear out the findings recorded by the authorities in this case. 10. It is further argued that the District Collector, Idukki, who gave a report to the government complaining about the misbehaviour of the petitioner at a conference held at the Collectorate was appointed as the Inquiring Authority, and that is violative of principles of natural justice. If the complaint is true, one could have agreed with the conclusion also. 10. It is further argued that the District Collector, Idukki, who gave a report to the government complaining about the misbehaviour of the petitioner at a conference held at the Collectorate was appointed as the Inquiring Authority, and that is violative of principles of natural justice. If the complaint is true, one could have agreed with the conclusion also. But the complaint does not appear to be true. The District Collector, who submitted report against the petitioner was in due course transferred and was succeeded by another person. It was the successor who was appointed as Inquiring Authority. There is no principle of natural justice which would inhibit such a a course being followed. 11. The last argument relates to the suspension period. The charges against the petitioner are not really of a minor nature. Petitioner has been occupying a fairly high position in the Transport Department of the State, i. e., the position of Regional Transport Officer. That is an office vested with considerable powers under the Motor Vehicles Act. He was unauthorisedly absent for fairly long periods;during the period of such absence, he was inspecting a large number of vehicles evidently unauthorisedly. On one occasion, he left the Headquarters, without obtaining the previous sanction from the competent authority and without handing over charge of this important and sensitive office to any other officer and he did not conduct himself properly on two occasions, when he attended meeting in the Collectorate and in a meeting of the R. T. A. Inspite of the seriousness of these charges against the petitioner, considering the position occupied by him, the government took a lenient view and directed the suspension period to be treated as period of duty for the purpose of pension and also directed that for the suspension period the petitioner will get 30% of the pay and allowances less the subsistence allowance already paid. The learned counsel for the petitioner would characterise this action of the government as unduly harsh. I am unable to agree with this submission. I think, the Government has been extremely considerate to the petitioner. Neither Ext. P1 nor Ext. P5 deserves to be quashed in these proceedings. In the result, the original petition is dismissed; but in the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs.