A.PARAMESWARA IYER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition Mr. T. N. Subramania Iyer, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges the proceedings taken by the State Government, and which ultimately resulted in the passing of the order, Ext. P 8, by the respondent on 20-6-1961. Under Ext. P 8, it will be seen that the State Government are of the view that, misbehaviour as against the petitioner, has been proved and that he is dismissed from service with effect from 13-2-1961, the date on which he was placed under suspension, pending enquiry into the charges framed as against him.

(2.) The petitioner joined as a clerk in the Land Revenue Department in 1107 and he was occupying various positions after that period and ultimately in 1955, he was promoted and posted as Sub Magistrate, Irinjalakuda. On 6-10-1956, the Bar Association, Irinjalakuda, passed a resolution alleging serious misconduct as against the petitioner and requesting for action being taken as against him. On a copy of the resolution being sent to the High Court, the latter directed the District Magistrate, Trichur to conduct a preliminary enquiry in the matter.

(3.) The District Magistrate, Trichur conducted an enquiry and his report is Ext. P 1 dated 19-12-1957. It is not really necessary to go into the various matters mentioned in the report because that is only more or less a sort of a preliminary enquiry directed to be conducted by the authorities concerned to decide as to whether disciplinary proceedings have to be initiated as against the petitioner. But it will be seen that the view of the District Magistrate appears to be that as regards the allegations about the petitioner -- having taken bribe, though there are sufficient materials that the Magistrate has received illegal gratification, the evidence is not of such a nature as will justify a conviction for taking bribe, if a criminal proceeding is launched against him. There is also the view expressed by the District Magistrate that the petitioner has allowed parties in pending cases to see him at his house and that he has also gone out of the way in going to the office of the Syndicate for an attestation and that he has been indiscriminate in the matter of imposing punishments and in taking up and deciding cases on plea of guilty to the charge made by the parties, even in cases where these parties had specifically denied the charges in the first instance.