ABDUR RAHIM AHMED Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays that this Court may be pleased to quash the order of appointment of respondent 2 as the "specially empowered authority," as per the order of the Governor in No. LAW 284 CET. 64, dated 11 January, 1965, and further quash all proceedings of respondent 2 held in pursuance of the above order by issuing a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction as the Court deems fit.

(2.) The material facts of this case are these : In the year 1943 the petitioner was recruited as a District Munsif by the Madras Public Service Commission. Thereafter, he was serving in the Judicial Department of the then Madras State. He was promoted as a Subordinate Judge in the year 1954. At the time of the reorganization of the State on 1 November, 1956 he was allotted to the new State of Mysore. In this State the post of a Subordinate Judge has been equated to that of a civil Judge. From the petitioner's affidavit it is gathered that his claim for promotion as a District Judge was overlooked and that several of the juniors have been promoted as District Judges, while he still continues to be a civil Judge. This circumstance appears to have greatly displeased the petitioner.

(3.) In the beginning of 1964 he was serving as civil Judge at Karwar in North Kanara district. On 3 June, 1964 he applied for and obtained thirty day's commuted leave on ground of illness. He extended that leave another thirty days. But instead of joining duty on expiry of the said leave, he intimated the District Judge, North Kanara, that he would be applying for a further extension of leave by one month. On 7 August, 1964 the Chief Justice passed an order directing the petitioner to join duty at once and if he did not join duty within seven days, action would be taken against him. He failed to comply with that order. He has not yet joined duty. In this connection an enquiry was held by Narayana Pai, J. That enquiry disclosed a prima facie case to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.