M CHINNAPPA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Sub-Collector, Rajampet, dated 7-3-1965, as confirmed by the District Collector, Cuddapah, and the Board of Revenue.

(2.) The Petitioner is the hereditary village Munsif of Utukur Village, Rajampet Taluk, Cuddapah District. He was performing his duties accordingly. While so, on 6-5-1964, charges were framed against him by the Sub-Collector, Rajampet, for misappropriation of Rs. 120 collected on 13-8-1961 was deposited on 2-11-1961. And thirdly, he remained absent without obtaining leave. The petitioner was directed to submit his explanation. After some dilly dallying on his part, finally he submitted the explanation. In his explanation , he said that the amount of Rs. 274-12 p. was deposited by him on 12-9-1963 under challan No. 684/5 in the Sub-Treasury. In regard to the temporary misappropriation, he stated that the had given a receipt in advance and not actually collected the amount. In regard to the third charge, he stated that he never remained absent without any leave. He wanted the witnesses to be cross-examined and their evidence recorded in his presence. The Sub-Collector finding himself unable to make the enquiry directed the Tahsildar to conduct the enquiry. The Tahsildar, without information to the petitioner, conducted confidential enquiry and submitted a confidential report to the Sub-Collector. On the basis of this report, a copy of which was not given to the petitioner, the petitioner was removed from service by the order of the Sub-Collector dated 7-3-1965. He found the petitioner guilty of all the charges.

(3.) On appeal to the Collector, the Collector dismissed the appeal on 24-5-1965 concurring with the opinion of the Sub-Collector. A further appeal to the Board of Revenue, therefore, was carried by the petitioner. The Board of Revenue, by its order dated 23-9-1965, thought that while charges 2 and 3 were trivial, in its opinion. the first charge was proved. In that view, the Board of Revenue concurred with the opinions of the two authorities below. It is this concurrent view of all the officers that is now challenged in this writ petition.