M V JOGARAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judgment of the Court delivered by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice. This is an appeal against the order of our learned brother Satyanarayana Raju J. dismissing the application filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quesh the order of the Government dismissing him from service.

(2.) The appellant was a permanent Tahsildar of Visakhapatnam District. It was brough to the notice of the Government by appropriate departments that a pritma facie case of corruption was made out against him. The matter was in due course entrusted to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings for enquiry. The allegations against the appellant were that when he was working as Special Tahsildar for Xoans, he took illegal gratifications in 9 instances from the applicants lor loins of the village of Narava and its hamlets and in four instances from the applicants of the village of Kanithi. The Tribunal framed charges and held an elaborate enquiry. The enquiry was held along with that of another Government servant one Thakoor jee who was during the crucial period the Special Revenue Inspector for Loans in the same place. The Tribunal held that five acts of corruption had been made out against the appellant and it recommended to the Government that the appellanc should be dismissed from service, On the receipt of the report, on 7th January, 1953, the Government of Madras issued the following notice to the appellant. We shall read the entire notice as the main argument was based on its terms. It runs:

(3.) Pursuant to the notice, the appellant submitted written explanation challenging the validity of the Tribunal's findings and also on the quantum of punishment proposed to be inflicted. He pointed out in his explanation that the rinding of the Tribunal was based on no evidence and thac the Tribunal had violated statutory rules. The Government thereafter made a final order on 26th June 1953 dismissing him from service. In that order, after giving a brief history of the case and stages of the inquiry, the Government stated thus : The Government have further examined the records of enquiry in the light of the final written representations of the accused officers. They see no reason to revise their provisional conclusions referred to in para 3 above. They accordingly confirm that conclusion in respect of the punishment to be imposed on the delinquents and direct that Sri M. V. Jogarao, Sri M. A. Rahim and Sri S. Thakoorjee be dismissed from service with effect from the dates on which they were placed under suspension." The appellant filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to. quash that order. Satyanarayana Raju J. dismissed it by his order dated 4th February 1955. Mr. Venkatesam, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised before us various contentions which his client had unsuccessfully pressed before the learned. Judge. We shall proceed to consider them in seriatim.