Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 560 (KER)

Mohammed Jamal v. State of Kerala

2013-07-04

A.M.SHAFFIQUE

body2013
JUDGMENT : The petitioner seeks to quash certain reports of the Wakf Enquiry Commission on the ground that there are adverse remarks, findings and recommendations against the petitioner which were totally unwarranted. The main challenge is with reference to report Nos.4, 5, 7, 11, 13, 19, 20 and 23 and also the unnumbered report at Ext.P10. 2. According to the petitioner, when an enquiry report is prepared in terms with the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952, before passing such adverse remarks and findings against a particular person, necessarily notice has to be issued to the said person and only after calling for such remarks that any such adverse report could be finalised. In other words, the main contention urged by the petitioner is that various imputations and adverse remarks were made against him without issuing notice which were unwarranted and uncalled for as the terms of reference never called for making such remarks. 3. Facts involved in the case would disclose that the petitioner is the Chief Executive Officer (for short 'CEO') of Kerala State Wakf Board. Ext.Pl is the appointment order. Petitioner joined service on 20/6/2001. According to the petitioner there had been several attempts to tarnish the reputation of the petitioner and to bring him under the cloud of suspicion and for that purpose the 1st respondent as per G.O.P.NO.381/2008/RD dated 6/11/2008 appointed the 2nd respondent as Commission of Enquiry under the Chairman ship of Retired District Judge under Section 3 of the Commission Of inquiry Act, 1952. The said Government order at Ext.P7 contains the terms of reference also. It is said that the Commission had submitted 24 reports to the Government of which 22 reports were submitted jointly by the Chairman and the Member Secretary. 23rd report was submitted by the Chairman of the commission and one unnumbered report was submitted separately by the Member Secretary. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that serious imputations and findings were rendered by the commission in relation to the conduct of the petitioner and opinions were formed which has prejudicially affected the reputation and character of the petitioner. 5. The reports have been accepted by the Government as per G.O (M.S).No.l66/10/RD Dated 11/5/2010. In Ext.P9 it is indicated as under: "(1) Wakf enquiry Commission report and the notes prepared based on the report are approved (2) The report shall be published and further action shall be initiated. 5. The reports have been accepted by the Government as per G.O (M.S).No.l66/10/RD Dated 11/5/2010. In Ext.P9 it is indicated as under: "(1) Wakf enquiry Commission report and the notes prepared based on the report are approved (2) The report shall be published and further action shall be initiated. (3) Action shall be taken on the recommendation of the Commission as per Section 97 of the Central Wakf Act and Section 63 of the Wakf rules," 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Section 8B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act and contends that when the Commission considers the conduct or action of any person, it has to issue notice to the said person, for giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard and also has to give sufficient opportunity to produce evidence. Such an opportunity was not given to the petitioner and therefore the adverse remarks are to be dispensed. Reliance is also placed on State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani (2003 (8) SCC 36). 7. Counter affidavit is filed by the first respondent inter alia supporting the stand taken by the Commission. It is stated that the Commission had narrated the lapses on the part of the petitioner which cannot be challenged in a writ petition especially when the report had been approved by the Government. If any proceedings had been taken against the petitioner in the light of the report it is possible for him to challenge the said proceedings. It is also stated that sufficient notice has been given by the Commission as without information from the Chief Executive Officer the Commission cannot function. It is stated that at the relevant time when the Commission was conducting the enquiry, the petitioner was the CEO. He was given sufficient opportunity to submit remarks and it is only after the explanation and remarks submitted by the petitioner that the Commission submitted its reports. Specific reference is also made to Ext.PIO report which contains a notice issued by the Commission and the explanation he had submitted. As per notice dated 30/4/2009 petitioner was directed to furnish details in connection with construction of the Wakf Head Office. The petitioner had submitted explanation or remarks to proceedings dated 25/06/2009 of the Commission which is available at page 210 of Ext.PIO report. He had given an explanation dated 30/6/2010 which also forms part of Ext.PIO report. As per notice dated 30/4/2009 petitioner was directed to furnish details in connection with construction of the Wakf Head Office. The petitioner had submitted explanation or remarks to proceedings dated 25/06/2009 of the Commission which is available at page 210 of Ext.PIO report. He had given an explanation dated 30/6/2010 which also forms part of Ext.PIO report. It is therefore the contention of the respondent that sufficient notice had been issued to the petitioner and the remarks were made available and it was based on materials on record, that the report came into existence which cannot be called in question in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. They have supported the stand taken by the petitioner and had controverted the findings in the enquiry report. Additional 4th and 5th respondents who were subsequently impleaded in the petition had filed a counter affidavit. According to them, no changes are required to be made in the report as the report had been approved by the Government. According to them, the enquiry had been conducted properly and sufficient notice had been given to the petitioner before arriving at such conclusions. 9. It is not in dispute that the interference by the court with reference to the report submitted by the Enquiry Commission under the Commission of Inquiry Act is very limited. This court is not sitting in appeal against a report of enquiry. It is for the Government to either accept the report or to reject it or to take further action pursuant to the report. It is also not in dispute that the Government had accepted the report and intends to take further proceedings pursuant to the report. Petitioner's only grievance is regarding adverse remarks made against him while working as CEO and the illegality pointed out is lack of issuance of notice under Section 8-B of the Act. 10. The file in this connection has been called for. Both sides were given an opportunity to peruse the files. Petitioner's only grievance is regarding adverse remarks made against him while working as CEO and the illegality pointed out is lack of issuance of notice under Section 8-B of the Act. 10. The file in this connection has been called for. Both sides were given an opportunity to peruse the files. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the files does not disclose issuance of notice as contemplated under Section 8-B. The Learned Government Pleader as well as learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 submits that sufficient notice had been given by the Commission to the CEO to explain the matters relating to the proceedings followed by them and therefore there is no violation of natural justice or the allegation of non-compliance of Section 8-B of the Act is not correct. Section 8-B of the Commission of Inquiry Act reads as under "Persons likely to be prejudicially affected by - if, at any stage of enquiry, the commission - (a) considers the necessary to enquiry into the conduct of the person; or (b) is of opinion that the reputation of any person is likely to be prejudicially affected by the enquiry, the commission shall, give to that person a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the enquiry and to produce evidence in his defence; Provided that nothing in this Section shall apply where the credit of a witness is being impeached." Paragraphs 6 to 9 of Lal Krishna Advani's case (Supra) are relevant which reads as under : "6. The High Court, while referring to a decision reported in State of J. & K. v. Bakshi Gulam Mohammad observed that when an authority takes a decision, which may have civil consequences and affects the right of a person, the principles of natural justice would at once come into play. Reputation of an individual is an important part of one's life. The High Court then quoted a passage from a decision of this Court reported in Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry which passage (SCC p. 515, para 25) contains the observations from an American decision in D.F. Marion v. Minnie Davis and reads as follows : "The right to enjoyment of a private reputation, unassailed by malicious slander is of ancient origin, and is necessary to human society. A good reputation is an element of personal security, and is protected by the Constitution equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty and property." Some decisions, to which our attention has been drawn by Shri Harish N. Salve, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent 1, may be referred: Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipku. Some decisions, to which our attention has been drawn by Shri Harish N. Salve, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent 1, may be referred: Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni wherein it was observed that right to reputation is a facet of right to life of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution. He has also referred to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1965 (ICCPR), recognizing the right to have opinions and the right of freedom of expression subject to the right of reputation of others. The Covenant provides: "1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. 3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) for respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) for the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals." It Is thus amply clear that one is entitled to have and preserve one's reputation and one also has a right to protect it In case any authority, in discharge of its duties fastened upon it under the law, traverses into the realm of personal reputation adversely affecting him, it must provide a chance to him to have his say in the matter. In such circumstances right of an individual to have the safeguard of the principles of natural justice before being adversely commented upon by a Commission of Inquiry is statutorily recognised and violation of the same will have to bear the scrutiny of judicial review. In such circumstances right of an individual to have the safeguard of the principles of natural justice before being adversely commented upon by a Commission of Inquiry is statutorily recognised and violation of the same will have to bear the scrutiny of judicial review. A reference may be made to Peter Thomas Mahon v. Air New Zealand Ltd. 7. The provision as contained under Section 8-B of the Act quoted above, was brought into the statute-book by amending Act 79 of 1971. 8. It may be noticed that the amendment was brought about, about 20 years after passing of the main Act itself. The experience during the past two decades must have made the legislature realize that it would but be necessary to notice a person whose conduct the Commission considers necessary to inquire into during the course of the inquiry or whose reputation is likely to be prejudicially affected by the inquiry. It is further provides that such a person would have a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to adduce evidence in his defence. Thus the principles of natural justice were got inducted in the shape of a statutory provision. It is thus incumbent upon the Commission to give an opportunity to a person, before any comment is made or opinion is expressed which is likely to prejudicially affect that person. Needless to emphasise that failure to comply with the principles of natural justice renders the action non est as well as the consequences thereof. 9. Shri Dinesh Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that since no action has been taken against Respondent 1 so far, in pursuance of the report of the Inquiry Commission there was no occasion for him to move the Court in the matter. It was not the appropriate stage to raise any grievance by filing a petition challenging certain observations made by the Commission of Inquiry. The petition was thus premature. It was not the appropriate stage to raise any grievance by filing a petition challenging certain observations made by the Commission of Inquiry. The petition was thus premature. We feel that it may not be necessary for a person to wait till certain action is initiated by the Government considering the report of the Inquiry Commission where the observations made by the Commission are such which militate against the reputation of a person and particularly, without giving any chance to such a person to explain his conduct It would be open for him to move the court for deletion of such remarks made against him violating the provisions of Section 8-B of the Act." 11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and the learned senior counsel appearing for additional respondents 4 and 5. 12. The short question to be considered in this case is whether any notice had been issued to the petitioner during the course of enquiry while making adverse remarks against the petitioner and if no such notice had been issued whether the findings against the petitioner can be expunged. 13. The request of the petitioner is not to set aside the enquiry report as such whereas the only request is to dispense certain remarks and adverse findings against the petitioner as stated in various reports. The argument of the learned senior counsel appearing for additional respondents 4 and 5 is that the enquiry was conducted with reference to the matters relating to the Wakf Board and as such it is the CEO who had submitted all the documents to the enquiry commission. He was the CEO during the relevant time when the enquiry was being conducted and therefore merely for the reason that notice has not been issued to him, by itself will not be sufficient to dispense the remarks against him as he has participated in the enquiry proceedings producing various documents called for and answering various questions. Whereas on the other hand the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry commission has gone beyond the terms of reference and had deliberately made certain remarks which were totally uncalled for against the CEO. 14. Whereas on the other hand the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry commission has gone beyond the terms of reference and had deliberately made certain remarks which were totally uncalled for against the CEO. 14. A perusal of the terms of reference would indicate that as far as the CEO is concerned, reference points 3 and 7 are important which reads as under: "(iii) whether the salary and other allowances drawn by the CEO at present is allowable to the post, and if not which are the allowances drawn beyond limit and action to be taken against such drawals; (vii) whether the CEO is biased and partial while enquiring into complaints and taking actions thereon" 15. The other references are of general importance but, of course, while considering the references, the commission may have to trench upon the activities of the CEO also. 16. Report No.4, is in regard to reference No.X. The Commission forms an opinion that the CEO has violated Section 26 of the Wakf Act. Still further it opines we and that this violation is intentional". The reference was only to find out whether any appointment and fixation of employee was made when the same was banned by the Government. If the materials on record suggest that such appointments were made when there was a ban by the Government, the findings against the CEO that he had intentionally violated the provisions of law ought to have been made only with notice to him. The report does not suggest any such notice being issued to the petitioner. 17. Report No.5, is based on reference No. VI, as to whether there is any base for the complaint that application for registering the Wakf properties are ignored. Here it is found that there is dereliction of duty on the Wakf Board and it's CEO. Here again the reference was not an enquiry against the CEO and the report does not show that he was issued any notice. 18. Report No.7 is regarding reference No.VII in regard to the CEO's bias and partiality. There is no finding of any bias or partiality against the petitioner. It only says that there is non-compliance of Section 26 of the Act. 19. In regard to Report No.11, the reference is for submitting recommendations to the various complaints raised in the earlier references. Report No.7 is regarding reference No.VII in regard to the CEO's bias and partiality. There is no finding of any bias or partiality against the petitioner. It only says that there is non-compliance of Section 26 of the Act. 19. In regard to Report No.11, the reference is for submitting recommendations to the various complaints raised in the earlier references. In this report it is stated that with reference to point no.7 no report is received that CEO is biased or partial but the complaint received was that CEO was not taking proper actions and conducting effective enquiries in the complaints and taking suitable action. In regard to Point No.8 also it is stated that no such complaint has been received. However it is stated that an amount of Rs.66,73,250/- was granted as Loan scholarship and during the last 37 years, the repayment was only Rs.1,66,245/- and effective steps were not taken by the Board to get the defaulted amount back which according to the commission is a serious fault on the part of the CEO in not taking action against the defaulters. Here also the report does not indicate that any notice has been issued to the CEO to explain his fault. 20. Coming to the 13th report, this is with reference to Reference Nos. 2 and 11. Ref.No.2 is whether the Secretary has committed any lapse in informing the Government. It is found that there is lapse on the part of the CEO to exercise the power under Section 26 of the Wakf Act. Here the commission came to a finding that the power granted to the CEO under Section 26 of the Wakf Act to override the resolution of the Board is fettered by Section 23(3) of the Wakf Act, Rule 63(5) of the Kerala Wakf Rules 1996, Rule 66 (4) of the Kerala Wakf Rules 1996, Section 27 of the Wakf Act, Rule 117(2) of the Kerala Wakf Rules 1996, Rule 63(3) of the Kerala Wakf Rules, 1996. It is also found that in view of the controls mentioned in paragraph 2 of the report, the CEO has to think thrice before exercising his power under Section 26 of the Wakf Act against the Charmain and members of the Board. It is also found that in view of the controls mentioned in paragraph 2 of the report, the CEO has to think thrice before exercising his power under Section 26 of the Wakf Act against the Charmain and members of the Board. Hence a recommendation is made that the control of the Wakf Board over the CEO mentioned in para 8 of the report has to be released, so that the CEO will be bold enough to exercise his power under Section 26 of the Wakf Act in case of necessity. This report virtually gives a clean chit to the CEO in terms of non-compliance of Section 26 of the Wakf Act, as even according to the Commission the procedure prescribed as matters stand now does not enable the CEO to act against the decision taken by the Board. 21. The next impugned remarks are in report No.19. The reference was to submit recommendation after examining any other complaints. Here there is reference to an explanation being called for. This has reference to a Wakf Munnakkal Juma Mosque. It is seen from the report that certain explanation was called for from the CEO. It seems that some unauthorised committee was managing the affairs of the Wakf. Paragraph 5 of the report indicates explanation from the CEO for its in-action is on account of the various litigations before the Wakf Tribunal. The commission came to a finding that the pendency of the litigations will not deter the Wakf Board and the CEO in recognising the Muthawalli or appointing an Executive officer or framing a scheme for administration or forwarding the allegations the said wakf property. In this regard, it is found that the CEO failed to discharge his duty while handling the above matters. 22. Report No.20 is with reference to terms of reference No.IX in regard to the irregularities in expenditure and financial matters. There is a finding that the CEO is responsible for not moving the Government for appointment of an auditor in the matter. This was with reference to construction of Wakf head office, purchase of vehicles and their use. A reference is made to various documents placed before the Commission. There is a finding that the CEO should not have obeyed the illegal orders from the Chairman as the proposed act of construction was not in accordance with the Rules. This was with reference to construction of Wakf head office, purchase of vehicles and their use. A reference is made to various documents placed before the Commission. There is a finding that the CEO should not have obeyed the illegal orders from the Chairman as the proposed act of construction was not in accordance with the Rules. Here also it is stated that the CEO ought to have exercised his power under Section 26 of the Act. This report also does not show that he was issued any notice before arriving at such a conclusion. 23. In regard to the 23rd report, it is with reference to item Nos. iv, v and xi. Here also, there is no specific notice being called for from the petitioner but the Commission opines that necessary explanation has to be called for from the CEO as to why an enquiry was not conducted by the Wakf board regarding the relative value of the Rubber estate and Manarghat building in the year 2003 before granting sanction for exchange and to take appropriate action. This report also does not indicate that any notice given to CEO or calling for a report from the CEO. 24. The next is regarding the unnumbered report at Ext.PlO. It is submitted by the Member Secretary. It says that a summons was issued to the CEO on 30/4/2009, 18/5/2009 and 25/6/2009, but no proper explanation by way of affidavit was submitted by the CEO. He had sent a letter to the Commission on 10/6/2009 and on 30/6/2009. It is stated that the CEO had in his reply dated 10/06/2009 marked as Ext.Rl stated that no estimate was prepared whereas as per Ext.F3, a resolution is taken on 10/01/2001 by the Kerala Wakf Board, from which it was seen that an estimate was prepared for the project. This, according to the report, is a clear false submission made by the CEO to mislead the Commission. The finding therefore is that the role of the CEO and other persons who are responsible for the construction of the building has to be separately investigated and the deception played by the CEO and others are to be unearthed. It is also stated that no proper accounts were maintained by the CEO and the investigation was made after keeping him out of office. It is also stated that no proper accounts were maintained by the CEO and the investigation was made after keeping him out of office. The report further indicates that notice was issued to the CEO to submit details on 30/4/2009, 18/5/2009 and also the explanation was given with reference to the same. 25. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, most of the reports proceeded on the basis that the CEO ought to have complied with the provisions of Section 26 of the Wakf Act. The answer is given in the enquiry report itself especially in report No.11 clearly indicating that the statutory provisions will create a substantial doubt in the mind of the CEO in regard to the right to exercise such a power overlooking the decision taken by the Board. In regard to the report of the Member Secretary which is unnumbered it could be seen that summons had been issued to the CEO on 30/4/2009, 18/5/2009 and 25/6/2009 for which replies were given by the CEO. But these matters related to production of documents and providing certain details. An explanation is also given in terms of letter dated 30/6/2009. If, as a matter of fact, it was necessary to come to a finding that the petitioner has actually misled the Commission necessarily notice ought to have been issued to the petitioner before arriving at such a finding. This is apparently lacking in the report. 26. The files in this regard have been produced by Learned Government Pleader on the request made by this Court as the issue was with reference to notice under Section 8-B of the Wakf Act. In respect of file relating to report No.4, a notice dated 15/11/2007 is issued by the Member Secretary of the Commission to the CEO to give the remarks with reference to the matters stated in the complaint. The explanation given is dated 07/12/2007. Report No.4 is with reference to Reference No.10. In regard to report No.5, the file does not contain any notice issued to the CEO. In regard to report No.7 by letter dated 20/4/2009, the CEO was directed to furnish certain details which he supplied on 02/05/2009. Similarly in respect of most of the complaints it could be seen that explanation was called for from the CEO. Therefore this is not a case where the CEO was not put to notice regarding the enquiry. In regard to report No.7 by letter dated 20/4/2009, the CEO was directed to furnish certain details which he supplied on 02/05/2009. Similarly in respect of most of the complaints it could be seen that explanation was called for from the CEO. Therefore this is not a case where the CEO was not put to notice regarding the enquiry. The terms of reference are very clear and the complaints were forwarded to the Commission which was again forwarded to the CEO for remarks. In certain cases, documents were called for. Therefore, this is not a case where the CEO was completely at dark about the proceedings. He was aware of the proceedings. He had produced the necessary documents called for by the commission and explanations were given. On the basis of such documents and explanation the commission had arrived at certain findings. The only finding that could be impugned are those which were personally made against the petitioner. If it is stated that the petitioner has not complied with a particular provision of law it is again for the Government to consider whether such noncompliance was with valid explanation or not. 27. But the complaint of the petitioner in the present case is that there is a finding against him that he had deliberately or intentionally carried out certain actions violating the statutory provisions. Now let me examine the nature of enquiry that can be done by the Commission under the Commission of Inquiry Act when it relates to a conduct of the person. As I have already held that sufficient notice has already given to the petitioner as CEO to produce various documents and examine certain matters at least in respect of certain complaints. 28. If there is substantial compliance of issuance of notice, the question to be considered in this case is when a finding is entered into which affects the reputation of a person especially in regard to his conduct as an officer, should he be given an opportunity to explain by the Commission. Section 8-B of the Act clearly indicates issuance of such a notice. In the present case, no doubt the petitioner as CEO had produced various records before the Commission and had also given certain explanations. Section 8-B of the Act clearly indicates issuance of such a notice. In the present case, no doubt the petitioner as CEO had produced various records before the Commission and had also given certain explanations. If the Commission wanted to come to a definite finding regarding the conduct of the petitioner, which affects his reputation as an officer and as a person, necessarily the commission ought to have issued a notice to him in that regard and should have sought for an explanation. In the case on hand, initially the commission in the 4th report says that the action of the CEO in not complying with Section 26 is intentional. But later in the 9th report, the Commission finds that it is difficult for the CEO to invoke section 26 of the Wakf Act in order to apply the said provision by virtue of the conflict with other statutory provisions. In that background, can it be said that the action of the petitioner is intentional or deliberate. It is in that background, if such a finding is required to be made, definitely an opportunity to explain and adduce evidence ought to have been granted. Still further, in respect of other issues also, it could be seen that when there was specific reference against the petitioner to find out his bias or being partial, it was found in the negative. But when coming to another issue relating to construction of a building, the Member Secretary opines that there is gross dereliction of duty on the part of the CEO. It 'could be seen from the records that notice had been given to produce certain documents as well as details which were given. The documents does not disclose that the CEO was questioned on why such a 'misleading' statement was made by him especially in regard to the preparation of estimate. Probably he has an explanation for it which the commission ought to have enquired into before coming into such a conclusion. 29. Therefore when the very purpose of Section 8-B of the Act is to enable a person whose conduct might be affected should be given an opportunity to explain why such a finding should not be entered against him, such an aspect has been completely overlooked by the Commission. 30. I do not think that issuance of such a notice will be an empty formality. 30. I do not think that issuance of such a notice will be an empty formality. For that reason I do not think that the judgment in Fazal Bhai Dhala v. The Custodian General ( AIR 1961 SC 1397 ) will have any application. 31. In respect of matters relating to non-compliance of the rules or regulations, it is only procedural violation for which Government can take necessary action depending upon the alleged violation. But when the conduct of a person, or his reputation as an officer is being impeached in an enquiry necessarily he should be put to notice that the enquiry is proceeding in that angle and his explanation should be called for with reference to that particular allegation and finding entered therein. 32. Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, I am of the view that the impugned remarks, observations and findings by the Commission without complying with the procedure under Section 8-B of the Act is bad in law and is liable to be expunged. 33. The learned senior counsel appearing for additional respondents 4 and 5 however contends that in so far as the report has been approved by the Government without challenging the said decision of the Government it is not open for the petitioner to challenge the findings of the enquiry report. No doubt, the enquiry report has not given any finality as such and merely for the reason that the Government has approved the report does not mean that the petitioner could not challenge the said report if there is a statutory violation. Failure to comply with the procedure under Section 8B, which is failure to comply with the principles of natural justice or a right to be heard cannot be ruled out merely for the reason that the Government had approved the said report. Violation of principles of natural justice goes to the root of the matter and findings in that regard can be challenged before a court even if the findings of the Commission had been approved by the Government. 34. Under these circumstances, this writ petition is only to be allowed as follows : It is declared that the personal remarks against the petitioner as found in report Nos.4,5,7,11,13,19,20,23 and also unnumbered report at Ext.PlO is expunged. 34. Under these circumstances, this writ petition is only to be allowed as follows : It is declared that the personal remarks against the petitioner as found in report Nos.4,5,7,11,13,19,20,23 and also unnumbered report at Ext.PlO is expunged. However, the judgment shall not preclude the Government from taking ' appropriate action against the petitioner, if found necessary after giving an opportunity of being heard.