K DAKSHINAMURTHI Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of Veeraswami J. in W. P. 113 of 1960. The appellant, K. Dakshinamurthi, was employed as a police constable serving in the Special Armed Police. The departmental authorities framed the following charge against him:--"conduct unbecoming of a police constable in having political leanings towards the charge itself, as contained in a letter in Tamil dated 3-9-1957 addressed "many regards. We are sorry to hear about the death of your mother. We regret sd. S. A. P. Comardes" (Tholargal)It was also alleged in the Memorandum of charge issued to the appellant, that the state Examiner of Questioned Documents. Madras, opined that there were indications that the appellants wrote the anonymous petition, that thereby he revealed his political leanings towards the Dravide Munnetra Kazhagam party and that as a Government servant he should not have had any political leanings. The above mentioned letter seems to have reached the hands of the C. I. D. of the police department. How it reached them is not before us, nor are we asked to go into it. During the enquiry held against the appellant on the above charge, he was also shown a letter dated 2-11-1967, from the Superintendent of Police, Special branch, C. I. D. , Madras, to the Inspector-General of Police, Madras. It is stated in this letter:--

(2.) THE defence of the appellant was that he did not write the above letter. Even on its face, it purports to be a communication sent by a group of people, and not by any one person. It was urged that at best it was only a letter of condolence, and could not be characterised as evidence of political leanings. Consequently the very basis of the charge was unfounded. It was contended further, that the extract of the letter of the Superintendent of Police to the Inspector-General of Police, was only an opinion of some official communicated to another official and could not form legal material for basing a charge against the appellant. The departmental authority's finding at the enquiry was that as a member of a disciplined force the appellant ought not to have any kind of political leanings. The opinion of the State examiner of Questioned Documents was conclusive to establish that the author of the letter was the appellant. By his undisciplined conduct he had rendered himself unfit for retention in a disciplined force. He was there upon dismissed from service.

(3.) AGAINST this order of dismissal the appellant filed a writ petition for the issue of an order of certiorari, before this court. The learned Judge, who disposed of the writ petition. held: