STATE OF MADRAS Vs. T K GOPALA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the State of Madras from the order of a learned Judge of this court (Ramachand Iyer J. as he then was) in App. No. 112 of 1955; we may succinctly state that, by virtue of this judgment, the learned Judge held that the state had no right to order the compulsory retirement of Sri T. K. Gopaia Iyer (respondent), who was an Assistant Regional Meteriologist at Pattukottai in June 1947. In effect, the learned Judge granted a declaration in favour of the respondent that the order of the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 3919, Health, dated 17-11-1950 was illegal and without jurisdiction.

(2.) THE broad facts of the disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent officer (respondent), which culminated in his compulsory retirement by the Government, (appellant) are not in dispute. In 1947, upon a departmental report, the Assistant director of Public Health (Epidemics and Vital Statistics) was deputed to conduct disciplinary proceeding against the officer. Six charges formed the subject of the proceeding, and the Assistant Director of Public Health held that all of them were substantiated (Vide Ex. A-14 ). Admittedly, the authority competent to punish the respondent-officer on these charges, was the Director of Public Health, as the head of the department. The Director of Public Health, after reviewing the material, decided to abandon five charges, and he found that charge No. 6 alone was proved. Finally, after the proceedings for obtaining an explanation from the officer with regard to the proposed penalty, the Director of Public Health ordered the permanent stoppage of one increment in the pay of the respondent.

(3.) PURPORTING to be aggrieved by this punishment, the respondent filed an appeal to the Government under Rule 19 of Part IV of the Madras Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal Rules. Admittedly, the Government referred the appeal for advice to the Madras Public Services Commission, and it is the confidential report of the Commission, which was the substratum of the later developments. For reasons stated in this report, the Commission was of the view that all the charges had been proved, except charge No. 5, and that the Director of Public Health was in error in holding charge No. 6 alone proved, and basing his disciplinary action thereon. The Commission considered the punishment quite inadequate, and recommended the compulsory retirement of the officer. The government then scrutinsed the matter, agreed with the opinion of the commission and by an order, dated 1-8-1950 (Ex. A-29), called upon the respondent to show cause why he should not be compulsorily retired. The respondent submitted an explanation, and, after considering his explanation and the further views of the Public Services Commission, the Government directed the compulsory retirement of the respondent in G. O. Ms No. 3919 Health dated 1711-1950.