S A VENKATARANAN PETITIONER Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, praying for a writ, in the nature of certiorari, for calling up the records of certain criminal proceedings started against the petitioner by the Special Judge, Sessions Court, Delhi and for quashing the same on the ground that these proceedings are without jurisdiction, having been commenced in violation, of the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 20(2) of the Constitution.

(2.) The petitioner was a member of the Indian Civil Service and till lately was employed as Secretary to the Ministry of Commerce and Industries in the Government of India. Certain imputations of misbehaviour by the petitioner, while holding officers of various descriptions under the Government of India, came to the notice of the Central Government and the latter being satisfied that there were 'prima facie' good grounds for making an enquiry directed a formal and public enquiry to be made as to the truth of falsity of the allegations made against the petitioner, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act of 1850. The substance of the imputations was drawn up in the form of specific charges and Sir Arthur Trevor Harries, an Ex-Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, was appointed Commissioner under Section 3 of the said Act to conduct the inquiry and report to the Government, on the result of the same, his opinion on the several articles of charge formulated against the petitioner. The order of the Central Government directing the enquiry is dated the 21st February 1953. The charges were drawn up under six heads with various sub-heads under each one of them. The first charge alleged that the petitioner was guilty of misbehaviour inasmuch as he showed undue favour to M/s. Millars Timber and Trading Company Limited in the matter of issue of import and export licenses, by abusing his position as a public servant in the discharge of his duties, that is, by accepting illegal gratification or valuable things for import and export licences recommended or to be recommended by him. The second charge was to the effect that the petitioner accepted or obtained valuable things for himself and other members of his family, without paying for them, on different dates from Messrs, Millars Timber and Trading Company Limited for recommending their applications for import licences and export permits. The fourth and the fifth charges were similar in nature to charges 1 and 2 except that they related to the petitioner's dealings with another firm known as Sunder Das Saw Mills,.

(3.) The enquiry proceeded in the manner laid down in the Public Servants (Inquires) Act. The charges were read out to the petitioner and his plea of "not guilty" was formally recorded. Evidence was adduced both by the prosecutor and the defence and the witnesses on both sides were examined on oath and cross-examined and re-examined in the usual manner. The Commissioner found, on a consideration of the evidence, that four of the charges under various sub-heads were proved against the petitioner and submitted a report to that effect to the Government on the 4th of May 1953. By a letter dated the 15th of May 1953, the Government informed the petitioner that, on careful consideration of the report, the President accepted the opinion of the Commissioner and in view of the findings on the several charges arrived at by the latter, was provisionally of opinion that the petitioner should be dismissed. Opportunity was given to the petitioner by this letter in terms of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution to show cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him and it was stated that any representation, which he might desire to make, would be taken into consideration before the final order was passed. The petitioner, it seems did make a representation which was considered by the Government and after constitution with the Union Public Service commission the President finally decided to impose the penalty of dismissal upon the petitioner. The order of dismissal was passed on the 17th of September 1953. On the 23rd February 1954 the police submitted a charge-sheet against the petitioner before the Special Judge, Sessions Court, Delhi charging him with offences under Sections 161/165 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and upon that, summons were issued by the learned Judge directing the petitioner to appear before his court on the 11th of March 1954. It is the legality of this proceedings that has been challenged before us in this writ petition. The petitioner's case, in substance, is that the proceedings that have been started against him are without jurisdiction inasmuch as they amount to fresh prosecution for offences for which he has been prosecuted and punished already and this comes within the prohibition of Article 20(2) of the Construction. The sole point for our consideration is, whether in the events that have happened in this case, there has been a violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 20(2) of the Constitution which would justify the issue of a writ for enforcement of the same