THE STATE OF MADRAS, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT AND ANR. Vs. M. KANDASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Madras is the appellant. The respondent entered service as Assistant Public Prosecutor, Grade II in 1942 at Coimbatore and was promoted to Grade I in 1945 and posted to Erode. He held the post till 1958 when as a result of investigation by the Crime Branch into certain complaints, the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings conducted proceedings dated 24th May, 1958 against him. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings framed 14 charges and conducted an enquiry. After the evidence had been fully recorded and at the stage of hearing arguments, there was a change in the personnel of the Tribunal. The succeeding Officer heard the oral arguments, perused the written arguments as well and submitted his report to the Government. Out of the 14 charges framed against the respondent the Tribunal found that only four charges were proved. The Government accepted the report of the Tribunal and issued a show cause notice to the respondent to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The respondent submitted his explanation. After considering the same, the Government passed G.O.Ms. No. 1438, Home, dated 25th April, 1961, dismissing the respondent from service. The respondent filed an appeal to the Governor and the Governor, in G.O.Ms. No. 3724, Home dated 26th October, 1961 passed an order staring that the respondent's memorial was rejected without giving any reason and treating the appeal filed by the respondent as a mere memorial. The respondent submitted another petition to consider the appeal filed by him on the merits as required by the rules in view of the fact that his appeal was disposed of as a memorial. The respondent was informed by Memorandum dated 12th June, 1962 that all aspects of the respondent's appeal were considered in passing G.O.Ms. No. 3724, Home dated 26th October, 1961. The respondent thereupon filed W. P. No. 127 of 1963 in this Court seeking to quash the order of the Government.

(2.) IN support of his writ petition the respondent raised the following principal contentions; (1) The charges framed were vague and indefinite and lacked precise particulars; (2) The findings of the Tribunal were perverse and based on no evidence or a misreading of the evidence recorded; (3) The statutory appeal to the Governor was summarily rejected, without assigning any reason; (4) Certain arguments which were not supported by the evidence on record were presented by the prosecution and the Tribunal placed reliance upon the same; (5) In respect of some of the charges of bribery there was no corroboration by an independent witness; (6) The evidence recorded on behalf of the defence was totally ignored or explained away without due consideration; (7) The evidence was viewed from a bias perspective speculatively and not impartially; (8) No Tribunal with a judicial cast of mind can possibly reach the conclusion which the Tribunal had come to in this case; (9) Where the whole area of evidence was in favour of the defence such evidence had been discarded without reason. The State of Madras filed a counter denying the averments in the petition and stating that the Tribunal examined the matter carefully and impartially that the charges were clear and specific, that every opportunity was given to the respondent to defend himself, that the findings of the Tribunal were supported by evidence, and that this Court has no jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to re -examine and re -assess the evidence as if in an appeal.

(3.) THE learned Judge set out the first of the charges held proved, namely charge No. 2 which related to the payment of an illegal gratification of Rs. 500 by one Ramanujam to the respondent The learned Judge dealt with Ramanujam's version that the respondent demanded a bribe of Rs. 1,000 for arguing before the Sub -Divisional Magistrate the case filed against him for attempt to murder the Sub -Inspector and the case filed by him against the Sub -Inspector for wrongful confinement and robbery as calendar cases, and that Ramanujam paid Rs. 500 as bribe to the respondent. Referring to the evidence, the learned Judge held that the Sub -Divisional Magistrate decided the cases as P.R. casts suo motu without posting the same for argument that the Tribunal had only the uncorroborated testimony of Ramanujam in support of the demand of a bribe and his giving Rs. 500 to the respondent on a date not specified, that the defence version of Ramanujam having ill -will against the respondent due to the successful prosecution of some cases against Ramanujam was not considered, that there is no evidence to support the charge except by speculative and argumentative reasoning adopted by the Tribunal, and that the finding of the Tribunal Was vitiated by a total lack of acceptable evidence duly corroborated. Under the above circumstances, the learned Judge, on a perusal of the entire material relating to the charge, held that the charge was not established.