M KRISHNAMOORTHY Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petnr. was employed, as an Asst. District Health Officer in the Public Health Department of the Madras State & he acted as the Municipal Health Officer at Srivilliputtur from November 1947 till about the middle of May 1948. On complaints against him from the residents of the locality sent to the Director of Public Health and other authorities; there was first an enquiry by the District Health Officer and subsequently by an officer of the Crime Investigation Dept. The Govt. finally refd. the matter to the Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal for an enquiry. The Tribunal called upon the petnr. to show cause against certain charges which included a charge of corruption. The petnr. filed a written statement meeting the charges. The Tribunal proceeded with the enquiry, recorded evidence & submitted its report dated 31-10-1949 to the Govt. The Tribunal recommended that the petnr. may be removed from service. Govt., apparently did not agree that this was a sufficient penalty as, in their opinion, the charges were proved beyond doubt & therefore by order dated 3-3-1950 dismissed the petnr. from service with effect from 10-3-1950. Against this order of dismissal, the petnr. preferred an appeal to His Excellency the Governor under the Civil services (Classification & Appeal) Rules. This appeal was rejected on 7-7-1950. The petnr. now seeks for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the orders of Govt. dated 3-3-1950 & 7-7-1950.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petnr. attempted to bring the case under Article 227 of the Constitution under which this Ct. is given superintendence over all Cts. & tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. We have no hesitation whatever in holding that neither the Govt. nor the Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal would fall within Article 227.

(3.) The question is whether any interference under Article 226 will be justified in this case. Under Article 310(1) of the Constitution, except as expressly provided by the Constitution, every person who is a member of a civil service of the Union & every person who is a member of a civil service of a State holds office during the pleasure of the President or the Governor respectively. Article 311 lays down two requirements to be fulfilled before a person who is a member of a civil service of a State is dismissed or removed. They are (1) that he shall not be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed & (2) that he shall not be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him. The proviso exempts the observance of the second requirement in certain circumstances, e.g., where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge. Admittedly both these requirements have been fulfilled in the case of the petnr. He was not dismissed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. Before he was dismissed, he was given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against his dismissal. He was given notice of the charges against him & he was given the opportunity of meeting them. In these circumstances, we fail to see anything which calls for our interference.