REVANNA YELERI Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays that this Court may be pleased to quash, by the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction, the enquiry proceedings culminating in the order of the Government dated 19 January, 1962 dismissing the petitioner from service.

(2.) The petitioner, who was a Deputy Superintendent of Police in the erstwhile Hyderabad State, was allotted, after the reorganization of States, to the Mysore State. In 1959, the petitioner was serving as Deputy Superintendent of Puttur subdivision in South Kanara district. On receipt of a anonymous petition alleging certain acts of corruption against the petitioner, the Special Officer, Efficiency Audit, Bangalore, got the same enquired into by a police inspector of the Anti-corruption Department. The Special Officer, Efficiency Audit, thereafter submitted the report of the enquiry made by his Inspector to the Inspector-General of Police. The Inspector-General of Police placed the report before respondent (Government of Mysore). The Government of Mysore, respondent 1, thereafter decided to hold a departmental enquiry against the petitioner and appointed the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Southern Range, as the enquiry officer and ordered the suspension of the petitioner pending the enquiry. The enquiry officer framed six charges against the petitioner and served the same on the petitioner. The first charge was that the petitioner preferred false travelling allowance claims, falsely showing and certifying that he had performed certain journeys by his jeep, when it was garaged for repairs in the garage of the Canara Public Conveyance Company, Mangalore, thus causing wrongful loss to the Government to the extent of Rs. 227.41. Charge 2 was that the petitioner, while he was the Deputy Superintendent of Police in Puttur, South Kanara district, between 17 and 20 August, 1958, left the district without leave or permission and proceeded to Bangalore on the sly, evidently for his own private errands. Charge 3 was that the petitioner wrote false diaries and manipulated Government records in respect of his official duties, falsely showing that he performed various duties within the subdivision, when actually during the said period, he was out of the district at Bangalore and Mysore without leave or permission. Charge 4 was that during this period he preferred false travelling allowance claims by showing journeys as on duty within his jurisdiction whereas in fact he had been out of the district to Bangalore without leave or permission and thereby caused wrongful loss to the Government to the extent of Rs. 21.60. Charge 5 was that the petitioner obtained from a taxi-driver a false receipt for a sum of Rs. 47 purporting to be the taxi-hire paid by him for a journey of 65 miles, while, in fact, no such journey was performed and on the basis of that false receipt, the petitioner drew Rs. 47 as travelling allowance. Charge 6 was that he made long-distance trunk calls from the Government telephone for his own private purpose and charged the cost of the trunk calls to the Government.

(3.) In the said enquiry, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and marked 22 documents and the petitioner examined 10 defence witnesses and marked 19 documents. The enquiry officer held that the charges 1 to 5 were proved and that charge 6 had not been made out against the petitioner. On receipt of the report of the enquiry officer, the respondent issued a notice under Art. 311(2) of the Constitution of India to the petitioner, asking him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. As the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 25 September, 1961, the Government, in exercise of their power under rule 95(b) of the Mysore Civil Services Rules 1955, ordered the retention of the services of the petitioner until the final order was passed by the Government in the disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner submitted his explanation and thereafter the respondent passed the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service. This petition is filed questioning the said order of dismissal.