VELAYUDHAN PILLAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions are by the same person in respect of the same matter and substantially for the same relief. The later petition, O.P. 123 of 1959, is more or leas a repetition of the earlier petition, O. P. 324 of 1958, excepting that it takes note of an event subsequent to the institution of the earlier petition and asks for an additional relief on that account. Therefore the earlier petition may, for all practical purposes, be ignored.

(2.) The petitioner entered the service of the 2nd respondent Municipal Council in August 1932 in some subordinate capacity or other. He had not passed the S.S.L.C. Examination but had only completed the course, and he held a certificate to that effect. It would appear that a pass in the S. S. L. C. examination was not a necessary qualification for the particular appointment. The petitioner produced his S.S.L.C. book before he joined duty, and his service book which was prepared by some other person in the office (that was duly signed by him) contained the entry, Secondary School Leaving Certificate to indicate the petitioners qualification. The return of appointments sent by the Municipal Council that year showed the petitioner only as the holder of a Secondary School Leaving Certificate and not as a person who had passed the examination. It would appear that a pass in the examination is a necessary qualification for promotion and presumably on his own application, Government by G. P., D. Dis. 95882/53/E.H.L.S.G.dated 14-8-53 gave the petitioner the necessary exemption and declared him eligible for promotion. In pursuance of this order the petitioner got his promotion in due course.

(3.) This notwithstanding, it would appear from the affidavit of the 2nd respondent Council, that on 13-12-1956 its Commissioner (the 3rd respondent) reported to the 1st respondent State Government that the petitioner had secured promotions on the basis of an incorrect representation that he had passed the S.S.L.S. Examination and that the petitioner was responsible for a false entry to that effect in his service book. By a memorandum dated 23-9-1957 the Government directed the Commissioner to frame charges against the petitioner and proceed against him according to law. It would also appear that the Commissioner was directed to place the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry. Accordingly, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 25-9-1957 and after holding an enquiry, Commissioner found the petitioner guilty and by the order, Ext. P. 1 dated 16-1-1958, directed his compulsory retirement from service with effect from 25-9-1957, the date of his suspension. In doing so the Commissioner acted under S.72 of the Travancore District Municipalities Act, 1116, which, subject to such control as may be prescribed by the Government, invests the executive authority (namely, the Commissioner) with the power of punishment (extending up to dismissal) over municipal servants of the rank of the petitioner.