KARUPPA UDAYAR Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had the post of village karnam of village in Salem district. It was a post which was not governed by the provisions of the Hereditary Village Offices Act III of 1895. Charges were framed against the petitioner by the Revenue Divisional Officer, and after an enquiry, the Revenue Divisional Officer directed on 9 February 1953 that the petitioner should be dismissed from the post. The petitioner appealed to the Collector against the order of dismissal, but the appeal was dismissed on 23 March 1953. Further appeals to the Board of Revenue and to the Government also failed. The petitioner applied under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to set aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 9 February 1953, which was successively confirmed by the Collector, the Board of Revenue and the Government.

(2.) THE grounds on which the validity of the order of dismissal was attacked by the learned Counsel for the petitioner were as follows:

(3.) THE last of the grounds is easiest disposed of. Whether or not the ingredients of an offence punishable under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, had been made out, whether or not the petitioner could have been prosecuted in a criminal court, that did not affect the jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer to enquire into the truth of the charges against the petitioner in a departmental enquiry. The learned Counsel for the petitioner represented over and over again that the petitioner would welcome a trial in a criminal court. But that is not an answer to the question whether the Revenue Divisional Officer had jurisdiction to frame charges, and if those charges were proved, to punish without recourse to a criminal court.