THAKOORJEE Vs. STATE OF MADRAS NOW ADNHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In W. P. No. 858 of 1953 one Thakoorjee is the petitioner . He prays for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari or any other papropriate Writ or order calling for the records in G. O. Ms. No. 1793 (Revenue Department) dated 26-6-1953 and to quash the order therein. In W. P. No. 863 of 1953 one M. V. Joga Rao is the petitioner and he prays for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, to call for the records and to quash the proceedings in G. O. Ms. 1753 dated 26-6-1953. Both these petitions raise identical questions for consideration and can be conveniently dealt with in a common Judgment.

(2.) The petitioner in w. P. No. 858 of 1953 was the Revenue Inspecftor in Vashakapatnam Taluk, having put in ten years service as a clerk. During the years 1950-1951, he worked as Special Revneue Inspector for loans for a period of six months. On a charge of corruption, a prelimianry enquiry was started by the Sub-Collector, Vizianagaram, against the petitioner and as a result of the enquiry, the matter was handed over to the Crime Brnach for investigation. The Crime Breanch made an investigation and the petitioner eventually had to face proceedings before the Disciplinary Proceedings, Tribunal. The Tribunal held an enquiry and sent its report to the Government recommending dismissal of the petitioner. The Government communicated a copy of the Tribunals report and issued a "show cause notice" to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his written explantion and in G. O. Ms. No. 1793 dated 26-6-1953 the Government ordered the dismissal of the Petitioner.

(3.) In W. P. No. 863 of 1953, the petitioner was a permanent Tahsildar of vishakapatnam District and in 1950 he worked as Special Thasildar for lons, Vishakpatnam. there was a preliminary enquiry by the Sub-Collecotr, Vizianagaram against the petitioner on charges of corruption and the investigation was made over to the Crime Branch. The petitioner ultimately had to face an enquiry before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings. The Tribunal made an enquiry and in its report togovernment recommended dismissasl of the petitioner from service. The Government communicated a copy of the report of the Tribunl and directed the petitioner to show cause. He submitted a written explanation. The Government eventually accepted the recommendation of the Tribunal and in G. O. Ms. No. 1793 dated 26-6-53 ordered the dismissal of the petitioner from service.