KOCHERLAKOTA SUBBA RAO Vs. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA IN COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR OF KISTNA DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original suit out ,of which this second appeal arose was a suit against the Secretary of State to declare that an order of the Board of Revenue, dated 8 July, 1922, is invalid and for consequential relief. The original Court decreed for the plaintiff, the Appellate Court reversed that decree and the plaintiff appeals.

(2.) The plaintiff was a karnam of the ryotwari village of Voonagatla. On 4 October, 1921, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ellore, dismissed him.- He appealed to the District Collector, who modified the order into one of suspension for one year. He preferred a second appeal to the Board of Revenue, the result of which was that the Board on 8 July, 1922, restored the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dismissing him. The plaintiff maintains that that order is ultra vired and invalid. The above proceedings were taken under Act III of 1895. The original dismissal was under Section 7 and the appeals were under Section 23.

(3.) It is quite clear, I think, that no second appeal lay in this case. The only case in which a second appeal lies to the Board of Revenue in a matter of dismissal of a village officer is given in the proviso to Section 23 (1), and that is a case where there has been a dismissal under Section 7. That that dismissal must be by the order directly appealed against is clear. It cannot be reasonably contended that a second appeal lies to the Board in all cases where the original order by the Revenue Divisional Officer was dismissal. The result of such a contention would be that, in cases where the Revenue Divisional Officer has dismissed and the District Collector has modified the dismissal into a fine, a second appeal would lie to the Board; but where the Revenue Divisional Officer suspends and the District Collector confirms, no appeal would lie to the Board. The object of the proviso clearly is that it is only against orders of dismissal that the Board will entertain a second appeal ; that is, there must be an order of dismissal by the District Collector. There was in the present case no such order and, therefore, no second appeal lay to the Board. This is in fact the view of the Board itself in the Board's resolutions exhibited as Exhibits D and E and I may note that this position was accepted by the Government Pleader in the Lower Appellate Court. Therefore the Board had no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal. The proper order would have been to have dismissed the appeal summarily.