SREENIVASAYYA G V Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was on Assistant Engineer at Shimoga in May 1959. On a complaint by one N. K. Mohamed a contractor, to the effect that in connexion with the check measuring and the passing of bills in respect of some works done by the said contractor, the petitioner had demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 50, a trap had been laid against the petitioner on May 13, 1959. A prima facie case having been made out on investigation, a departmental enquiry was thereafter held. The charge which was framed at that departmental enquiry (vide Ex. C) was that he had been caught red-handed immediately after the receipt of the said bribe amount of Rs. 50. This departmental enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Director of Efficiency Audit and Anti-corruption who had been appointed as the specially Empowered Authority under rule 11(2) of the Mysore Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the C. C. A. Rules). The petitioner had filed a written statement as per Ex. D. in answer to the charge. A sub-inspector of police had been appointed to lead evidence in support of the charge. The petitioner made a prayer as per Ex. F. for being assisted by a legal practitioner, in the enquiry before the Specially Empowered Authority. Under rule 11(5) of the C. C. A. Rules this prayer of the petitioner was refused as per Ex. G; but he was permitted to have the assistance of a police sub-inspector. One Sri K. Srikanta Ayyar, a police sub-inspector having been chosen by the petitioner, assisted the petitioner to defend himself, at the enquiry. Ten witnesses were examined in support of the charge. The case sought to be established against the petitioner was that he had demanded illegal gratification from contractor Mohamed, that the said contractor gave information about the same to the Anti-corruption Police Officers, that the said police officers together with the panchas had concealed themselves near the office of the petitioner and that after the petitioner had received the marked currency notes from contractor Mohamed and had placed the currency notes under some files on his office table, the police officers and the panchas, at a given signal, rushed into the office, conducted a mahazar and seized the marked currency notes which were found on the table of the petitioner. The defence of the petitioner was that the case against him was a cooked up one on account of ill will which the contractor had against him. The defence version was briefly to the effect that as the contractor had against him. The defence version was briefly to the effect that as the contractor had not properly done his work, he had been recently warned by the petitioner and therefore the contractor was not well disposed towards the petitioner and that on the evening of May 13, 1959 the contractor had entered the office of the petitioner and that the petitioner chastised the contractor and frustrated the contractor's attempts by throwing away the notes on the floor; the defence version was further to the effect that on hearing the telephone ringing, the petitioner went to answer the telephone and that on his returning from the phone call, he saw the contractor standing near the table and that before he could question the contractor, he found members of the raiding party rushing inside and getting busily engaged in preparing records with false recitals. Ten witnesses had been examined as defence witnesses, on behalf of the petitioner. The further written representation as per Ex. W. was made by the petitioner, setting out in detail all the evidence and the circumstances in the case. After hearing what both sides had to say the Specially Empowered Authority made the report as per Ex. H. wherein after considering the evidence and the circumstances in the case, he held that the petitioner had demanded and accepted the illegal gratification and recommended that the petitioner should be dismissed from service. Thereafter, the Government accepted the report of the enquiry officer and issued the notice as per Ex. M. under Art. 311(2) of the Constitution, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner made the representation as per Ex. L. in answer to the show-cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner made the representation as per Ex. L. in answer to the show-cause notice. Finally, after consulting the Public Service Commission, the Government passed the order as per Ex. N. dated January 19, 1962, dismissing the petitioner. It would appear that the Public Service Commission had recommended as per Ex. U. that the petitioner may be compulsorily retired from service. The Government did not agree with that recommendation, and imposed the higher punishment of dismissal. It was thereafter that the present writ petition was filed by the petitioner.

(2.) The main contentions which have been urged by Sri S. K. Venkataranga Ayyangar, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, are the following :

(3.) Very elaborate and lengthy arguments have been addressed in support of each one of the above contentions.