Judgment :- While the petitioner was working as Telephone Mechanic, the 4th respondent Divisional Engineer, Telecom (DET), BSNL, Chengannur, issued disciplinary proceedings on the basis of Ext.P5 charge. As per Ext.P5 charge memo, it is alleged that, the petitioner has committed misconducts coming under Rules 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(1)(iii) and 17 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules. The allegation leveled against the petitioner is that while he was working as a Telephonic Mechanic, one Susamma filed O.S.No.316/1999 before the Munsiff Court, Chengannur, for recovery of an amount of Rs.57,000/= with interest from the petitioner. The suit was decreed ex parte and as the petitioner could not appear in the execution stage, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment from 22.5.2001 to 21.6.2001. On the basis of that, charge has been issued against the petitioner as aforesaid. After an enquiry and on the basis of Ext.P8 enquiry report, the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges leveled against him and he was awarded a punishment of compulsory retirement from service by the disciplinary authority. Against the order passed by the disciplinary authority the petitioner had filed an appeal before the appellate forum. The appellate authority also concurred with the findings entered by the enquiry officer and the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority. Consequently the appeal was dismissed by Ext.P10. Further, the petitioner had filed Ext.P11 review. The reviewing authority also dismissed the review application by Ext.P12 order. 2. The petitioner challenges Exts.P8, P10 and P12 orders before this Court. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer is vitiated by the violation of the principles of natural justice and the findings are without any evidence. Further it is contended that the enquiry officer has not appreciated the evidence adduced at the enquiry on legal principles. Lastly the counsel for the petitioner submits that the punishment awarded by the enquiry authority is excessive. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed sworning for and on behalf of the respondents and relying on the counter affidavit, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the enquiry officer has considered and appreciated the entire evidence and finally concluded that the misconducts alleged against the petitioner have been proved. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed sworning for and on behalf of the respondents and relying on the counter affidavit, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the enquiry officer has considered and appreciated the entire evidence and finally concluded that the misconducts alleged against the petitioner have been proved. Further it is contended by the by the learned counsel for the respondents that in the light of the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, it is proved that the petitioner has committed misconducts alleged against him and hence orders under challenge require no interference by this court. 4. Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules reads as follows: (1) “Every Government servant shall at all times: - (i) maintain absolute integrity; (ii) maintain devotion to duty; and (iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant”. 5. Further Rule 17 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules reads as follows: 17. Insolvency and habitual indebtedness A Government servant shall so manage his private affairs as to avoid habitual indebtedness or insolvency. A Government servant against whom any legal proceeding is instituted for the recovery of any debt due from him or for adjudging him as an insolvent, shall forthwith report the full facts of the legal proceedings to the Government. Note: - The burden of proving that the insolvency or indebtedness was the result of circumstances which, with the exercise of ordinary, diligence, the Government servant could not have foreseen, or over which he had no control, and had not proceeded from extravagant or dissipated habits, shall be upon the Government servant.” 6. Reading of the above Rules show that in order to prove the above misconduct it should be established that the incumbent has committed misconduct as alleged. It is to be noted that for Ext.P5 memo of charges, the petitioner has submitted his explanation and though the enquiry officer has not considered the same after passing Ext.P8 order by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner had also given a further explanation as Ext.P7. In Ext.P7, the petitioner has specifically contended that the charges now framed against him would not lie in the facts and circumstances proved before the enquiry officer. In Ext.P7, the petitioner has specifically contended that the charges now framed against him would not lie in the facts and circumstances proved before the enquiry officer. The specific charges against the petitioner as per the points for determination framed by the enquiry officer are as follows: “a. Whether there was a suit O.S.No.361/1999 against Shri D. Prisekutty before the Hon’ble Court of the Munsiff, Chengannur, with prayer to recover the money? b. If so, whether the said court pronounced its judgment and decree in the above mentioned suit on 7.9.99 allowing the plaintiff to recover the plaint amount of Rs.72,350/= with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the principal sum of Rs.57,000/= from the date of suit till the date of realization, from the defendant and his assets.? c. Whether Shri. D. Priskutty, the defendant in the suit O.S.No.316/99 failed to inform about its details and also the particulars of the judgment and decree in the case to any of his superior officers? If so, d. Whether this amounts to suppression of material information on the part of Shri D. Prisekutty by which he has failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government Servant violating Rules 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(1)(iii), of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964? 7. For answering the above points, the enquiry officer found that there was an ex parte decree passed against the petitioner in O.S.No.361/99 by the Munsiff Court, Chengannur decreeing recovery of Rs.72,350/= with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the principal sum of Rs.57,000/= and it is also found by the enquiry officer that the petitioner had not paid the amount in execution of the decree since he did not appear before the execution court and he was imprisoned in the civil prison for a period. The next point considered by the enquiry officer is that whether the petitioner had discussed with the superior officer about the pendency of the suit and the decree of the suit. Two witnesses have been examined on the side of the management and the specific question put to these witnesses is to the effect that whether they remember that the petitioner had discussed the matter with them. Their answer is that they are not remembering anything happened like that. Two witnesses have been examined on the side of the management and the specific question put to these witnesses is to the effect that whether they remember that the petitioner had discussed the matter with them. Their answer is that they are not remembering anything happened like that. Hence, it is not fully proved in the enquiry that the petitioner had not discussed or informed pendency of the suit or decree of the suit to the superior officers. If it had not discussed or informed pendency of the suit and the decree with the superior officer, then only charges under Rule 3 could be taken as proved. The finding now entered in the enquiry is only to the effect that a suit was pending against the petitioner and an ex parte decree was also passed against the petitioner. The specific case of the petitioner is that he had discussed the matter with the superior officers and he had given written information to the superior officers regarding pendency of the suit and further the petitioner had a case that he could not appear before the Execution Court as he was out of station and only on the basis of the attendance register where it is marked the petitioner as an absentee, it is found that the petitioner has not appeared before the court. But it is specifically stated by the petitioner that being a lineman in the Department he need not be present in the office or signed the attendance register in all days during the attendance time. It is also proved by the petitioner that he was out of station during the pendency of the suit. In the execution stage also, he could not appear and thereby he was sentenced to civil prison. At the time of issue of warrant, the petitioner was not in the station and subsequently when he appeared on warrant, he was imprisoned in the civil prison. Hence, the question to be considered is that whether the petitioner had committed any misconduct alleged in Ext.P5 charge memo. Though the enquiry officer found that the misconducts alleged against the petitioner have been proved as per Rule 3 sub rules (i) to (iii), it has to be established that an employee had failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and thereby unbecoming of a Government servant. Though the enquiry officer found that the misconducts alleged against the petitioner have been proved as per Rule 3 sub rules (i) to (iii), it has to be established that an employee had failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and thereby unbecoming of a Government servant. Admittedly there is no evidence before the enquiry officer that the petitioner has not discussed with the superior officers or informed the superior officers about pendency of the suit against him. The finding entered by the enquiry officer is not based on any evidence to prove the charge against the petitioner, hence the finding is perverse. Further, as per Rule 17 it could be proved that the petitioner. Further, as per Rule 17 it could be proved that the petitioner is in habitual indebtedness or become insolvent. Then only he could be punished for the alleged misconduct. It is the case of the petitioner that he could not appear before the trial court as he was away from the station and the suit was decree ex parte. The petitioner had filed an appeal for setting aside the ex parte decree and that appeal is pending before the appellate court and that apart, only a single instance of a decree in a suit passed against the petitioner was taken as the petitioner is a habitual indebtedness. 8. As per the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that since the petitioner was imprisoned and did not pay the decree amount hither to, that by itself could be taken as a basis for finding in as habitual indebtedness. But, the single instance of an ex-parte decree cannot be taken as a circumstance to hold that the petitioner is a habitual indebtedness. With regard to this, the findings entered by the enquiry officer as well as the authorities are also not acceptable. In this context, two judgments of this court are relied on by the counsel for the petitioner. 9. With regard to this, the findings entered by the enquiry officer as well as the authorities are also not acceptable. In this context, two judgments of this court are relied on by the counsel for the petitioner. 9. Firstly the learned counsel relies on a judgment reported in K.S.R.T.C. v. Abdul Latheef (2005 (3) KLT 955) in which this Court held that even if there was conviction under a criminal case based on which a misconduct is alleged, it should be proved that the crime alleged against the petitioner involves moral turpitude and this Court even taken a view that conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is not enough to hold that a misconduct involving in a criminal case and it could be taken as a basis for alleging any misconduct at all. Further in Ibrahim Kannu v. State of Kerala (2005 (4) KLT 1034) another Bench of this Court had taken the same view and hold that offence under Section 138 of the N.I. 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. 10. The facts of the case in hand would clearly indicate that the suit was filed against the petitioner for recovery of an amount due to the plaintiff and the petitioner could not contest the suit due to his absence and an ex parte is passed against him. Though the petitioner was imprisoned in the civil prison for not satisfying the decree, that by itself is not a reason to file charge of misconduct against him either under Rule 3 or rule 17 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules. 11. In the above circumstances this court is of the view that Exts.P8, P10 and P12 are not justifiable. Accordingly, these orders are quashed. There will be a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith with all service benefits. This writ petition is allowed accordingly.