MOHAMMED HANEEFA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is a member of the Indian administrative Service has filed this original petition inter alia to issue a writ of mandamus calling for the files relating to the issue of notification dated 17-8-1987 of the second respondent and to examine the scope and ambit of clause. 9 thereof and quash the proceedings of the Commission of Enquiry constituted by the respondents in respect of matters pertaining to the settlement of final bills, and to restrain the respondents from pursuing further action on the basis of the report of the Commission of Enquiry, in respect of this matter. THE petitioner points out that be joined the Civil supplies Corporation long after the settlement of contract for the purchase of Punjab rice with Scurvier Enterprises in respect of which the enquiry was ordered. THE payment of the final bill in respect of the supply from Andhra Pradesh traders was taken up only in April, 1985, while the terms of reference to the Commission of enquiry pertained to dealings/ transactions between October, 1983 and March, 1984. THE settlement of the bills was made long after this period. THE scope of the enquiry ordered as per Ext. P1 does not take in the matter of final settlement of the bills for rice purchased by the Corporation during the period 26-10-1983 to 18-2-1984 from other States through M/s. Mehr Rice Trading Company and its associates. Nevertheless the commission has submitted report alleging irregularities on the part of the petitioner in the settlement of the final bills. According to the petitioner the Commission has travelled beyond the scope of the reference and reported on this matter which did not fall within the scope of the terms of reference. Based on this report, which was beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission, the respondents are contemplating to take action against the petitioner. A report in that regard appeared in the Kerala Kaumudi Daily on 28-9-1988, a copy of which is Ext. P5. It is in this context that the petitioner has filed this original Petition for the reliefs mentioned earlier.

(2.) THE Commission of Enquiry in this case was constituted under S. 3 of the Commission of Enquiry Act, 1952. THE commission so constituted is not a court except for a limited purpose. THE procedure of the commission is inquisitorial rather than accusatorial (Kehar Singh v. State 1988 (3) SCC. Page 609 para 237 ). In an enquiry under the above Act there is no accuser, no accused and no specific charges for trial. Nor is the Government required to pronounce one way or other on the findings of the commission. THE commission is appointed by the Government for getting information for its own mind so that it may not act in its sovereign character otherwise than in accordance with law and the dictates of justice and enquiry. (In re Maharaja Madhav Singh ILR. 32 Calcutta page (1) Privy Council ). THE commission is thus only a fact finding body meant only to instruct the mind of the Government without producing any document of a judicial nature (Rajwade v. S. M. Hassan AIR. 1954 Nagpur page 71 ).

(3.) THE question is whether government has got the power to initiate action against the petitioner, if they have sufficient materials with them. Petitioner has no case that government has no such power. His only grievance is that the materials relied on are not legal for the finding was rendered by a Commission beyond the scope of the reference. As stated earlier, the question for consideration is whether government does have the jurisdiction. THE source of the materials on which they are acting is immaterial so long as they are relevant. Even if the materials are gathered on the basis of a report made outside the scope of the reference, that cannot vitiate the government's action if otherwise it is within jurisdiction. THEre is therefore no merit in the Original Petition. It is accordingly dismissed in limine. . .