LAKSHMINARASIMHAM G Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in the post of Co-operative Sub-Registrar, Vijayawada.

(2.) THE petitioner entered service as a junior inspector of co-operative societies in the year 1932 and was promoted as senior inspector in December, 1944. Sometime later, i. e. , on 13 July, 1946, he was appointed as Secretary to Kalidindi Land Colonization Society for Ex-service Men and he worked in that capacity till 6 March, 1950. During this period, he was given a further promotion as co-operative sub-registrar. After he was relieved from that office, he seems to have been directed to hold an enquiry into the affairs of Central Cooperative Stores, Vijayawada. Whilst things stood thus, he received a notice from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to the effect that he was suspended in view of certain charges that were pending against him. This was on 7 March, 1951. Thereafter, a charge was framed against him which reads thus : "that, actuated by corrupt motives and in abuse of your position and authority, you had, between 29 May, 1949 and 6 May, 1950, in your capacity as secretary-cum-ex-officio treasurer of the Kalidindi Ex-Servicemen Land Colonization Co-operative Society, made unauthorized advances involving huge amounts in cash, in utter disregard of the provisions of the bylaws of the society, to certain persons whose identity is not known and whose existence is imaginary, misappropriated the amounts so advanced for your own benefit and, with a view to cover up such acts of misappropriation, deliberately fabricated the records of the society by showing such advances as having been made and subsequently recovered, as detailed in the annexure attached hereto. "

(3.) THIS charge was communicated to the petitioner by the tribunal for disciplinary proceedings and he was called upon to submit his explanation within a stated time. After consideration of the explanation offered by the petitioner and the evidence on record, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the charge. Accordingly, a report was sent by the tribunal to the Government of Madras on 8 January, 1953. After a scrutiny of the report, the Government issued a notice to the petitioner on 28 March, 1953 to show cause within a month from the date of its receipt why he should not be dismissed from service. Before the expiry of this period, the petitioner asked for extension of time and time was extended upto 15 August, 1953. Without complying with the notice, the petitioner seems to have requested a further extension but this was not granted and on 22 September 1953 the order of dismissal was served on him.