RAJAGOPAL PILLAI Vs. SUB COLLECTOR KARUR TIRUCHIRAPALLI DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a former village karnam, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for calling for the records of the Government of Tamil Nadu (the fourth respondent) relating to G.O.Ms. No. 5747, Revenue Department, dated 15th September, 1973 and issuing a writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order, to quash the said Government Order. This petition was heard by a Division Bench consisting of Ramanujam and Ratnavel Pandian, JJ. But, on account of the Division Bench doubting the correctness of the ratio in Manickam v. State of Tamil Nadu1, the matter has been posted before this specially constituted Full Bench "for an authoritative ruling on the point".

(2.) THE petitioner was the village karnam of Sevalur in Manapparai taluk in Tiruchirapalli District. In a disciplinary enquiry against him with reference to certain charges, the Sub- Collector, Karur (the first respondent) held the charges proved and awarded the punishment of dismissal. THE petitioner failed in his appeal before the District Revenue Officer (the second respondent), but on further revision to the Board of Revenue (the third respondent), the findings on the charges were affirmed, but nevertheless, the petitioner's earlier record of good service was taken into consideration and the punishment was modified from one of dismissal to one of suspension for a period of three years. However, the fourth respondent, in exercise of its power under Board's Standing Order 156-A suo motu called for the relevant records and, after giving a show cause-notice to the petitioner, set aside the order of the third respondent and restored the order of dismissal originally passed by the first respondent. It is this order of the fourth respondent, viz., G.O.Ms. No. 5747, Revenue Department, dated 15th September, 1973 that is challenged in the writ petition on the ground that the fourth respondent, acting as a revisional authority, has no power to enhance the punishment.

(3.) BEFORE we consider the true and correct meaning to be given to the word "modify" occurring in Boards Standing Order No.l56-A (i), we may usefully refer to some of the cases which have arisen directly with reference to the Standing Order in question and some of the cases under other enactments where the word "modify" has come to be construed. In Kanakasabai Chettiar v. The State of Madras and others1, Sadasivam, J., sustained the validity of an order of the Board of Revenue wherein it suo moto revised the order of the District Revenue Officer and restored the order of dismissal passed on a village officer by the Revenue Divisional Officer, after setting aside the order of the District Revenue Officer awarding a penalty of Rs. 100 besides seven years" suspension from service. The order of Sadasivam, J., was sustained by Veeraswami, CJ. and Varadarajan, J., in Writ Appeal No. 214 of 1969. The Division Bench held as follows: - "It is quite open to the Board, under the provision we have recited, to consider and take the view that the sum of Rs. 100 levied as penalty is out of proportion to the gravity of the offence. In interpreting the language, one should not approach with a preconceived notion that it applies only to reduction and not to enhancement. The language is broad enough to cover enhancement as well." In M. Manickam v. The State of Tamil Nadu2 Ramanujam, J., one of the referring Judges, held that "Clause (iv) of the said Standing Order (Board's Standing Order No. 156-A) enables the Board to interfere when the punishment imposed on a village officer is out of proportion to the gravity of the offence and the power of interference is not restricted to the exercise of it only when the person against whom the punishment is imposed seeks redressal on the ground the punishment is excessive". The Judgment of Ramanujam, J., was confirmed by Veeraswami, CJ. and Suryamurthy, J. in Writ Appeal No. 260 of 1975 and the Division Bench held as follows: - " Proportion to the gravity of the offence will take in both enhancement as also reduction. There is no reason to think that it means only reduction of sentence or punishment."