K V GNANASAMBANDAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is now working as the Principal Police Training College, Madras, seeks to quash the very charge in respect of which the Departmental Enquiry No. 31/1980 was proposed by the respondents and also seeks a consequential relief to forbear the respondents from proceeding with the said enquiry.

(2.) SEVERAL grounds are urged at the instance of the petitioner to support the reliefs claimed. One among them is that when the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules 1955 hereinafter referred to as the Rules were framed by the Government of Tamil Nadu in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution of India, S. 5(1)(e) was not in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and that, therefore, the respondents are not entitled to proceed against the petitioner in respect of the charge, which, according to the petitioner, falls within the ambit of S. 5(1)(e). After S. 5(1)(e) was incorporated in the Central enactment, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, by virtue of Amendment Act 40 of 1964, there was no consequential amendment to the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Rules.

(3.) BEFORE examining this position, it is convenient to advert to the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate General that the charges as framed would fall within S. 5(1)(a) to (d). It is, therefore, necessary to recapitulate Sections 5(1)(a) to (d) of the Act. So far as S. 5(1)(e) is concerned, it should be proved that the delinquent officer or any person on his behalf is in possession or has at any time during the period of his office been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income and according to the learned Advocate General the possession of property or resources disproportionate to the known sources of the petitioner's income would also impress the misconduct envisaged under Section 5(1)(a) to (d). To make it clear, any illegal gratification obtained by the delinquent officer during his term of office could form part of such resources or property disproportionate to the petitioner's known sources of income. Therefore, though the charge as framed might fall with S. 5(1)(e), still the respondents, can validly proceed against the petitioner in the departmenal enquiry on the ground that the petitioner is guilty of either of the provisions of S. 5(1)(a) to (d). I am unable to agree. For, in my view, every one of the sub-section covers a specific field. There can be no overlapping by any one of the sub-sections. Further, if really in respect of the possession of property or having resources disproportionate to the delinquent officer's own sources of income, it was possible for the respondents to proceed against the petitioner under either of the sub-sections viz, S. 5(1)(a) to (d), S. 5(1)(e) is wholly unnecessary. The fact that S. 5(1)(e) was introduced later would indisputably indicate that the field covered by this sub-section was not covered by any of the preceding subsections. Above all, if a charge should be framed, it should be specific and should refer to a particular section or sub-section. The principal charge is charge No. 1 while the rest are connected with charge No. 1. Charge 1 reads thus : "That actuated by corrupt motive and in abuse of your official position and authority while you (accused officer) were working as Deputy Superitendent of Police in several places. Vice Principal, P.T.C. Vellore, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Madras, Deputy Assistant Inspector General of Police, Madras, Additional Superintendent of Police and Superintendent of Police in several stations, you (AO) had accumulated properties (assets) to the value of Rs. 41, 573.41, rounded to Rs. 41, 573/-, as detailed below during the check period 12-9-60 to 1-8-76 which is found to be disproportionate to the known source of your legitimate income and you (AO) had failed to account for the disproportionate assets satisfactorily." * The charge sheet does not make any reference to any particular-section or sub-section thereof. This apart from a plain reading of the above charge, there cannot be any two opinions that the said charge would fall within the area covered by S. 5(1)(e). Further, as the charge reads, it is too difficult to bring the same within any one of the sub-sections of S. 5(a) to (d). Though there is no reference to the particular section or sub-section in the charge, am to reiterate that on the wordings of the charge, it would plainly mean that the petitioner is sought to be proceeded against under Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with R. 4(1)(a) of the rules.