STATE OF MADRAS Vs. T V PARVATHI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of Ramaswami Goundar J. in A. S. No. 435 of 1951. That appeal was from the decree and judgment of the learned subordinate Judge of South Malabar, at Palghat, in O. S. No. 32 of 1949 on his tile. The suit was filed by one R. V. Lakshmana Aiyar against the Province of madras in the following circumstances:

(2.) LAKSHMANA Aiyar, the. plaintiff, entered Government service as a clerk in 1910. He became in due course a Tahsildar and was confirmed as such with effect from 1-12-1944. He was acting as Huzur Sheristadar between April 1943 to June 1945. Ort 4-6-1945, he was appointed as Additional First Class Magistrate, Malabar. He took charge as such on 16-6-1945, and continued in that office till 17-10-1946, when he took leave. There was a charge of corruption against him and the Special Officer for departmental Enquiries held an enquiry and sent a report finding him guilty. After consideration of the report, the Collector passed an order on 28-11-1947, dismissing him from, service. The plaintiff appealed to the Board of Revenue against the said order of the Collector, but the Board confirmed the order. He then sought for a revision of the said order from Local Government, but his revision petition was rejected. Thereafter, he filed the suit out of which this appeal arises for a declaration that the order of dismissal from service passed by the Collector of Malabar, on 28-111947, was void and inoperative and that he was not thereby deprived of his right to get his pay and pension and that he still continued in service. Though the order of dismissal was impugned by him on several grounds, the only ground which we are concerned with in this appeal is that the order was in contravention of the provisions of Section 240 (2), Government of India Act, 1935. The plaintiff alleged that he was appointed Additional First Class Magistrate by the governor of Madras as the head of the State and that he was the only authority who could dismiss him and, therefore, the Collector of Malabar, who was an office lovver in rank, was not competent to dismiss him.

(3.) THE plea of the Government as regards this point was that the plaintiff was a permanent Tahsildar and he was only invested with the powers of a Magistrate of the First Class and he was not appointed to any new civil post by the Governor and as the Collector was the authority who appointed him as Tahsildar, he was competent to dismiss him and Section 240 (2), Government of India Act, 1935, was not contravened.