GOVERNOR-GENERAL IN COUNCIL Vs. TMKRISHNASWAMI PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the Governor-General in Council. The appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondent in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam. He was the chief signaller in the Head Post Office at Kumbakonam. By an order dated the 4 April, 1941, which was confirmed on appeal by the Postmaster-General, Madras, the respondent was dismissed from Government service. He filed the suit for a declaration that the order of dismissal was " illegal, void and inoperative" and for other reliefs. The Subordinate Judge granted the declaration asked for, but refused further relief. The appellant says that the Subordinate Judge erred in granting the respondent a declaration and in rejecting a plea advanced by the plaintiff that the suit was not maintainable because the provisions of Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code had not been complied with.

(2.) In or about the month of October, 1939, the respondent was suspected of having misappropriated monies which had come into his hands in the course of his employment and consequently was suspended by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Tanjore division, who reported the matter to the police. The result was that the police prosecuted the respondent for criminal breach of trust. After a lengthy hearing the respondent was acquitted by the Magistrate on the 9 September, 1940. The Post Office authorities were not satisfied with the Magistrate's findings and decided to proceed against the respondent departmentally.. By an order, dated the 1 March, 1941, the Superintendent framed five charges, against him. It is unnecessary to set them out in detail. It is sufficient to state that they were all charges of dereliction of duty, including a charge of having collected money by the issue of bogus receipts. The respondent was called upon to explain the charges within a week of the receipt of the memorandum served upon him and to show cause (1) why a loss to Government of Rs. 900 should not be recovered from him; and (2) why he should not be dismissed from service. He was informed that a suitable opportunity would be afforded to him if he wished to be heard in person.

(3.) On the 5 March, 1941, the respondent wrote to the Superintendent acknow-ledging receipt of the memorandum of charges and asking to be allowed one month's time to offer his defence. The request for further time was based on the assertion that he required the production of documents filed in the proceedings before the Magistrate. The request was granted. In the letter dated the 7 March, 1941, the Superintendent informed him that he should submit his explanation by the 1 April. On the 23 March, 1941, the respondent wrote to the Superin-tendent as follows: With reference to your memo of charge No. F-5/13 of 1 March, 1941, I humbly beg to submit that the charges thereon have been elaborately dealt with by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kumba-konam, before whom I stood the trial by a Court of Law for the same charges. I was found not guilty of the offence charged, as you are aware of. I have at this stage nothing further to submit to you in further proof of my innocence.