KESHAVAYYA V Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, V. Keshavayya, was working as a first division clerk in the Office of the Director of Sericulture in Bangalore. On the basis of the information that the petitioner was demanding a sum of Rs. 20 as illegal gratification from one Hombe Gowda, patel, Avaregere village, Ramanagaram taluk, to show an official favour in connexion with the grant of a sericulture loan to him, a trap was arranged and the petitioner was found having accepted a sum of Rs. 20 from Hombe Gowda in the Vishnu Bhavan Hotel, Kempe Gowda Road, Bangalore City, on 28 January, 1956. After necessary preliminary investigation the Deputy superintendent of Police attached to the Anti-Corruption Measures submitted his report to the Special Officer, Efficiency Audit, to hold a departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The special Officer, being convinced that a prima facie case was made out against the petitioner, nominated Sri H. N. Shankarappa, Gazetted Assistant to the Special Officer, Efficiency Audit, as the enquiring authority for holding the departmental enquiry against the petitioner under rules 14A(1)(b) and 14C(2) of the Mysore Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. The enquiring authority framed a charge against the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner while functioning as a first division clerk in the office of the Director of Sericulture, Bangalore, accepted a sum of Rs. 20 as illegal gratification from Hombe Gowda, Patel, Avaregere village, Ramanagaram taluk, in the Vishnu Bhavan Hotel, Kempe Gowda Road, Bangalore, to show an official favour to him in connexion with the grant of a sericulture loan and that the said sum of Rs. 20 had been paid to him in pursuance of an earlier demand of Rs. 30 and that the petitioner had thereby rendered himself liable for grave misconduct as a Government servant. The copy of the charge framed was served on the petitioner and he was asked to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him on the said charge by the enquiring authority.

(2.) The petitioner submitted a written statement denying the charge and asked for an oral enquiry. The petitioner was given an opportunity to examine the connected records, cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and to examine witnesses, in support of his defence. He cross-examined the several witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the charge against him. But he did not examine any witnesses on his behalf. After the conclusion of the enquiry the petitioner filed a detailed written statement before the enquiring authority. The enquiring authority held that the charge had been proved and submitted its report to the Special Officer, Efficiency Audit. The Special Officer who scrutinized the report concurred with the finding of the enquiry officer and held that the explanation offered by the petitioner was unsatisfactory and had been rightly rejected by the enquiring authority. Having accepted the finding of the enquiry officer, the Special Officer, Anti-corruption Department, recommended to the government that the petitioner should be dismissed from service as the charge of corruption had been proved beyond all doubt and as there was no extenuating circumstance in his favour. The Government issued a notice to the petitioner before imposing the penalty suggested by the Special officer as laid down in the provisions of sub-rules (9) to (12) of rule 11 of the Mysore Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. The Government having provisionally decided to dismiss the petitioner from service, issued a notice to him to show cause why he should not be so dismissed from service for the offence proved against him. Copies of the statements of the finding of the Government, the finding of the enquiry office and also the report of the Special Officer were sent to the petitioner along with the show-cause notice. The petitioner submitted his explanation within the time prescribed. The explanation of the petitioner, the statement of the finding of the Government, the finding of the enquiry officer and that of the Special officer were sent to the Public service Commission for their opinion. The Public Service Commission agreed with the finding of the Special officer, which was accepted by the Government, that the charge against the petitioner had been proved. It was of the view that the punishment proposed by the Special officer was the proper and appropriate punishment to be inflicted to the petitioner. After receiving the opinion of the Public Service Commission the Government examined the matter afresh and passed an order dismissing the petitioner from service on 15 December, 1960. A copy of the order of dismissal was served on the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner presented a petition on 11 April, 1961 for review of the order passed by the Government dismissing him from service and the same was rejected on 25 April, 1961. The petitioner has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 15 December, 1960 bearing No. clause 18 SET 59 passed by the State dismissing him from service.

(3.) It is urged by Sri Venkataranga Ayyangar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the order passed by the Government dismissing the petitioner from service after accepting the finding of the Special officer, Anti-Corruption, is illegal and is liable to be quashed for the following reasons :