LAWS(APH)-1969-2-10

W KUPPUSWAMY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Decided On February 22, 1969
W.KUPPUSWAMY Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPT HYDERABADI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 6-1-1967, the petitioner, a member of the Gram Panchayat of Nagiri, was directed by the Special Secy, to Government, functioning presumbly as the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj to show cause why he should not be removed from the office of Member of Gram Panchayat, Nagari,. The allegation against him was that he snatched away the minutes book of Nagari Gram Panchayat forcibly from the hands of the Panchayat Clerk when he was writing the minutes of the meeting held on 31-8-1966 and tore off certain pages i.e. from page No, 161 to 168 in which the resolutions of the meeting were recorded. The petitioner submitted his explanation and after considering his explanation the Special Secretary by his order dated 11-1-1968 found the petitioner guilty of the alegation made against him and directed his removal from the office of Member of Gram Panchayat, Nagari. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Government of Andhra Pradesh under S, 50 (4) of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act. The Minister for Panchayatj Raj gave a hearing to the petitioner who was represented by Counsel and on 5-6-1968 the Government confirmed the order of the Special Secretary to Government. In this application for the issue of a writ of Certiorari it is contended that the Special Secretary to Govt. obtained the comments of the Collector on the explanation of the petitioner behind the back of the petitioner and relied upon the same in coming to a conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the allegation made agains him. It is submitted that this is a violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also contended that the apoellate order of the Givernment shows that statements were recorded by the Divisional Panchayat Offirer from the Extension Officer and a Clerk of the panchayat. These statements have been recorded behind the back of the petitioner, since two members of the Panchayat alone were examined in the presence of the petitioner by the Divisional Panchayat Officer, The reception of the statements of the Extension Officer and the clerk of the Panchayat is also a violation of the principles of Natural justice as the petitioner was never given an opportunity to meet whatever allegations, were made by these two parsons. On the basis of the counter affidavit filed by the Assistant Secretary to Government in which it is mentioned that a statement was recorded by the Divisional Panchayat Officer from the Sarpanch also it is further contended that the Sarapanch was not examined in the presence of the petitioner and no copy of a statement was ever given to the petitioner, nor was he ever told that the Sarpanch had been examined.

(2.) The records produced before me reveal that the Sarpanch Nagari Gram Panchayat reported that the petitioner was guilty of disorderly behaviour at the meeting of the Panchayat held on 31-8-1966. The Divisional Panchayat Officer conducted an enquiry into the complaint of the Sarpanch and after recording statements from the Sarpanch, the Extension Officer, the clerk of the Panchayat C. Ramaswami and T. Muthuswami, two members of the Panchyat and the petitioner submitted a report to the collector, Chittoor on 27-9-1966. On receipt of the report, the Collector in turn submitted a report to the Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj Department on 5-11-1966 requesting that necessary action may be taken under S. 50 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Art for the removal of the petitioner from his officer. On the basis of the report of the Collector the Secretary issued the show cause notice dated 6-1-1967 to which a ref rence had already been made The petitioner's explanation was received by the Secretary on 7-2-1957 and was forwarded to the Collector, Chittoor on 22-2-1967 for his specific remarks. The Collector offered his remarks by his communication dated 29-3-1967 and gave his opinion that the petitioner's explanation deserved no consideration. It was after receiving the remarks of the Collector that the Special Secretary to Government passed G.O. Ms No. 18 dated 11-1-1958, the final order removing the petitionner from office. The documents mentioned in the preamble of G. O. Ms. No. 18 dated 11-1-1968 as having been read include the report of the Collector dt, 5-11-1966 and the letter of the Collector dated 29-3-1967. It is not disputed that copies of either of the documents was never supplied to the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that he was not aware that the Collector had interested himself in the enquiry and had submitted a report or had offered remarks on his explanation. The Special Secretary, therefore, acted in violation of the principles of natural justice in taking into consideration these two documents. The answer of the learned Government Pleader is that the petitioner never made a grievance of this fact in the appeal preferred by him to the Government and he cculd not now be permitted to raise this ground for the first time in Writ petition. I was in the beginning impressed with the argument of the learned Government Pleader because I thought if the petitioner was satisfied with the opportunity given to him and made no grievance of it in the appeal provided by statute it was not for this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 to hold that he had not been given a reasonable opportunity, But on further consideration of the matter, I think that a violation of a principle of natural justice is too fundamental a matter to be glossed over in so simple a fashion. The petitioner could not have been aware of the comments of the Collector on his Explanation before the Special Secretary passed his order. Even afterwards from the mere fact that one of the documents stated to have been perused by the Government was a letter from the Collector, the petitioner could not necessarily understand it to contain the comments of the Collector on his explanation. That was why, it is explained, the petitioner raised no ground before the appellate authority. The fact remains that the special Secretary obtained the remarks of the Collector on the explanation of the petitioner behind the back of the petitioner! The petitioner was given no opportunity to refute the allegations or comments contained in the collector's letter. That is a sufficient violation of the principles of natural justice to warrant an interfere ence by this Court. The matter would of course have been different if the petitioner, with full knoweledge of the report and its contents, deliberately allowed the Govt. to pass its order without protest. In such a ease. I would not have considered it necessary to disturb the order so passed.

(3.) In B.SURINDER SINGH KANDA V. GOVERNMENT OF THE FEDERATION OF MALAYA (1) the facts were as follows :- 4. An Inspector of Police was dismissed from service at the conclusion of certain disciplinary proceedings taken against him. The Inspector filed an action against the Federation of Malaya claiming a declaration that his dismissal was illegal During the course of the trial it was discovered that the adjudicating officer had before him the report of a Board of Enquiry containing a severe condem nation of the Inspector. The adjudicating officer had read the report before the commencement of the enquiry and had fu'l knowledge of its contents. The Inspector never knew about the report and hid no opportunity of dealing with it. Even in the statement of claim in the action filed by him he made no reference to it because he was not aware of it, the adjudicating officer not having referred to it and not having placed any reliance upon it in his order. The Inspector became aware of the contents of the report only during the course of the trial of the action starred bv h'm The question arose 'whether the hearing by the adjudicating officer was vitiated by his being furnished with the report without the Inspector being given any opportunity of correcting or contradicting it ? The arguments before their Lordships of the Privy Council proceeded on the footing that this depended on a further question; 'was there a real likelihood of bias, that is, an operative prejudice, whether conscious or unconscious, on the part of the adjudicating officer against the Inspector Kandai. The Privy Council disagreed that that was the proper approach and proceeded to state.