T RAJAGOPALA AIYANAGAR Vs. COLLECTOR OF SALT REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is from an order passed by Gentle, J., on two applications under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act praying for an order restraining the Collector of Salt Revenue, Madras, by a writ of prohibition from conducting or holding or proceeding with an enquiry into the conduct of the two applicants. The appellant was the applicant in No. 349 of 1937. The order passed by Gentle, J., covered the contentions of both of the applicants which were identical. An interim injunction had been granted on the 8 February. Gentle, J., by his order dissolved that injunction, discharged the rule nisi and dismissed the applications.

(2.) The appellant is an Assistant Commissioner of Salt and Customs, Central Division, Madras, to which office he was appointed on the 16 March, 1936, before which date he was Inspector of Salt and Customs, Negapatam. Certain charges had been made against the appellant and an enquiry under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules was proceeding on the date of the applications, the enquiry being conducted by the Collector of Salt Revenue, Madras, Mr. H. Greenfield. Previously, on the 5 November, 1936, Mr. Greenfield ordered the suspension of the appellant pending investigation of his conduct, and that of the other applicant before Gentle, J., whilst in charge of Karaikal frontier, Negapatam Circle. The applicant, as already stated, sought to restrain the Collector by writ of prohibition from proceeding with the enquiry. The applicants alleged that the enquiry was irregular and contrary to law in the following respect, namely, (a) the body which has authority to remove, dismiss or reduce the applicants was the Central Board of Revenue and the enquiry should be held by them and not by the Collector of Customs: (b) the applicants are entitled to be represented at the enquiry by an advocate and this having been denied to them the enquiry is not in conformity with the provisions of the law; and (c) they have not had communicated to them in respect of the charges made against them a statement of the allegations on which each charge was based. In the appeal, ground (c) was not pressed by the appellant.

(3.) I do not propose to set out in this judgment in detail all the facts or all the relevant rules of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules because they have been fully set out in the judgment of the learned trial Judge; I will only refer to those which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of the questions before us.