GOVINDU RAMA RAO Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER SRIKAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was Village Munsif of Vadada in Srikakulam District was dismissed from service on the ground that he had misappropriated the revenues of the Government, and also loan amounts collected by him. A part of the misappropriation was found out in July, 1965 and an explanation was called from him. Immediately, he was kept under suspension. On 4th April, 1971, the Tahsildar sent another and more ela- borate notice calling upon the petitioner to explain why action should not be taken against him for having misappropriated a large sum of Rs. 23,386-26 of land revenue and loan amounts. The petitioner tendered his explanation. On 25th of August 1971. the land belonging to the petitioner was attached by publishing a notice in the District Gazette and the notice stated that sale will be held on 10th November 1971. The sale was, however, postponed on an objection raised by the petitioner. Thereafter, on 28th of May. 1972. the Tahsildar sent a report to the Revenue Divisional Officer reducing the amount of arrears to Rs. 21,217-36 and stating that the petitioner has misappropriated this amount. The Revenue Divisional Officer accepted the report and issued proceedings dated 1-7-1972 that the petitioner had misappropriated that amount and called upon the petitioner to explain why he should not be dismissed from service. To this, the petitioner sent up his explanation stating that he had credited some more amount to the treasury. Accepting a part of his case, the Revenue Divisional Officer gave a further credit to the petitioner in a sum of Rs. 1,183-56. This order was passed on 5th September, 1972. Thereupon;an appeal was preferred by the petitioner to the District Revenue Officer.

(2.) On 5-4-1973 another notice was published in the District Gazette, this time attaching the petitioner's undivided onethird shara in the joint family property of 10 acres. 47 cents for recovering a sum of Rs. 20. 033-88. The sale was scheduled to take place on 28th of May, 1973. The District Revenue officer refused to stay the saie and on 5-6-1973, the sale was held which fetched a sum of Rs. 10,050/-. The third respondent in the writ petition happens to be the highest bidder Later, the District Revenue Officer dismissed the appeal. There was a second Appeal to the Board of Revenue and even before it was disposed of, the present writ petition was presented in this court on 5-7-1973. During the pendency of the writ petition, confirmation of sale was stayed on condition of the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. 2500/- It should be noted that the appeal to the District Revenue Officer and the further Second Appeal to the Board of Revenue were In respect of the punishment of dismissal that was imposed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on the petitioner. The Revenue Board by its order dated 6-12-1974 dismissed the apeal, but while doing so, directed the lower authorities to assess the correct balance of the amount misappropriated by the petitioner, taking into consideration the amounts actually credited by him, and to proceed against him for recovery of the amount thus ascertained.

(3.) Alladi Kuppuswami, j. referred the writ petition to a Division Bench for two reasons. The first of them is that the real value of the subject matter of the writ petition is more than Rs. 20,000/- The second ground which prompted the learned Judge to make the reference is that there is diversity of contention relating to the construction of decision in Mulajkar Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh (I) 1970 II An W.R. 360. Therefore, the writ petition is before us now.