M YUGANDHRA RAO Vs. GOVT OF ANDHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the discharge of the petitioner from service.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed an Executive Officer (Grade III) of the Pamidi Panchayat on 5/06/1952. While he was working as the Executive Officer of Penukonda Panchayat, it was discovered that he committed several irregularities in the discharge of his duties and also misappropriated funds, falsified accounts and manipulated the records. Pending further action against him, he was suspended. On 17/02/1954, charges were framed and served on the petitioner and he was called upon to explain. The petitioner in reply stated that, due to in experience, he committed the irregularities pointed out and prayed that he might be condoned and continued in service. On a consideration of the explanation offered by the petitioner, the Inspector- General of Local Boards discharged him from service on 21/06/1955. It is to quash this order that the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution is invoked.

(3.) The main ground of attack against the order is that the petitioner was not afforded the second opportunity as contemplated by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. The question for consideration is whether the petitioner is one who is entitled to the benefits of Article 311. Article 311 guarantees against a member of a Civil Service of the Union or an All India Service or a Civil Service of a State from being dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed and also without being given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him, if it was proposed to dismiss or remove or reduce in rank. The problem to be solved is whether an executive officer of a panchayat is a member of a Civil Service of a State" falling within the purview of Article 311.