TMUNISWAMY Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case presents the question whether a government servant can as of right claim legal representation in disciplinary proceedings falling within Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The argument that he could, is advanced on behalf of the petitioner before us who was dismissed from the post of a Commercial Tax Officer on the accusation that he received a bribe.

(2.) The material facts are these: On March 27, 1959, when a certain Krishnamurthy Rao, a hotel keeper of Chitradurga, complained at Bangalore to the Efficiency Audit and Anti-Corruption Department that the petitioner demanded a bribe, an Assistant Superintendent of Police of that department proceeded to Chitradurga and decided to set a trap. The currency notes proposed to be used at the trap were treated with a chemical and Krishnamurthy Rao was asked to deliver them to the petitioner and to make a signal when the bribe was received. On the night of March 28, 1959, Krishnamurthy Rao, according to his story, walked into the room of the petitioner, gave the bribe and made the pre-arranged signal which brought the Assistant Superintendent of Police and his companions to the room. It was said that the currency notes were recovered from a portion of the petitioner's dhoti and that that part of dhoti and his fingers when dipped in water gave it a pink colouration attributable to the chemical employed. After the completion of the investigation, the petitioner was placed by Government under suspension at the instance of the Special Officer of the Anti-Corruption Department. But the next step was not a criminal prosecution but the commencement of disciplinary proceedings under the Mysore Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. The Special Officer of the Anti-Corruption Department whose staff had laid the trap and made the investigation was himself appointed to conduct the enquiry and a police inspector of that department was nominated by the Government which were the disciplinary authority, to lead evidence in support of the charge by an order which reads:

(3.) When the petitioner sought permission from Government to engage counsel in defence, he was informed that he would not be permitted to do so. The communication addressed to him reads: