SRIKANDATH GOVINDA MENON Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been referred to me under Section 23 of the Travan-core-Cochin High Court Act, 1125, as the learned Judges. Velu Pillai and Mathew, JJ. , who originally heard the petition differed in their conclusions as to the jurisdiction of the Union of India to take disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on some of the charges.

(2.) A few fads may now be stated -The petitioner, Shri S. Govinda Menon, is a member of the Indian administrative Service. He was the First Member of the Board of Revenue. Kerala State and was also holding the post of Commissioner of hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments. On the basis of certain petitions containing allegations of misconduct against the petitioner in the discharge of his duties as Commissioner, the Kerala Government, after conducting certain preliminary inquiries, started disciplinary proceedings against him, keeping him under suspension under R. 7 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 (shortly stated the rules ). A copy of the charges was then served on him, together with the statement of allegations dire-cting him to submit his written statement of defence. The petitioner filed his written statement and after a careful scrutiny of the same, Government passed orders that the explanation to the charges was unacceptable and that the charges should he enquired into by an Inquiry Officer to he appointed under Rule 5 (5) of the Rules. Accordingly, Shri T. N. S. Raghavan, a retired I. C. S. Officer was appointed as the inquiry Officer. This writ petition was, therefore, filed praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner and for a writ of mandamus calling upon the second respondent, the State of Kerala, to allow him to function as the First Member of the Board of Revenue No application for stay was sought for and as there was no stay the Inquiry officer proceeded with the inquiry and submitted his report to the Union government, finding the petitioner guilty of charges 1 to 4 and 9. The union of India after a consideration of the report issued a show cause notice Ext. P9. Thereupon the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the writ petition and learned Judges who heard the petition allowed the prayer for amendment. The prayer in the amended petition was for the issue of a writ of a prohibition restraining the first respondent the Union Government, from proceeding further in pursuance of the show cause notice and also for quashing the same. The contention of the petitioner is that the proceedings initiated against him were entirely without jurisdiction as no disciplinary proceedings could be taken against him for acts or omissions in respect of his work as Commissioner under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (shortly stated the Act), that orders passed by him being quasi judicial in character can he impugned only in appropriate proceedings as provided under the Act.

(3.) THE question for decision, therefore, before the learned Judges was whether the government had jurisdiction to continue the disciplinary proceedings. In support of the contention that the Government had no jurisdiction, learned counsel for the petitioner formulated five propositions for consideration before the learned Judges. They were :--Proposition No. 1 the Commissions is a corporation sole, not the servant of the Government that against a person acting in the capacity of a Commissioner, the Government has no jurisdiction to take disciplinary proceedings: Proposition No. 2. That quasi-judicial orders and administrative orders of the Commissioner unless vacated under the provisions of the Act are final and binding on the Government and cannot be questioned by the executive Government through disciplinary proceedings: Proposition No. 3. For acts intra vires the Commissioner's powers, no charge can lie against the commissioner. Proposition No. 4 Under the acts and rules of business of the Government the concerned Minister alone representing the Government may revise or review the acts and orders of the Commissioner in exercise of the judicial power of the State; no other minister or the Government in the exercise of the executive power may question in any manner either by disciplinary proceedings or otherwise the correctness, regularity, legality or propriety of the Commissioner's acts and orders; proposition No. 5. Assuming, the Commissioner is a servant of the Government against whom disciplinary proceedings could be taken, yet leases granted by the Commissioner have been authorised, approved and ratified by the Government through its duly delegated Minister and it is not open to the Chief Minister to initiate disciplinary proceedings in respect thereof.