MARIMUTHU PILLAI Vs. MMUTHIRULAPPA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of Ramnad dismissing the plaintiff's suit for a declaration that the order dismissing him from the office of hereditary karnam of Kilkudi village passed by the Sub-Collector on 15 December, 1930, and the appellate orders of the District Collector in February, 1931, of the Revenue Board in the same year dismissing his appeals to them are illegal, void and not binding on him. The defendants were (1) the karnam who was appointed in the place of the plaintiff after his dismissal, (2) the Secretary of State for India in Council, and (3) the Rajah of Ramnad within whose zamindari the office is held, the office being one governed by Act II of 1894 and not Act III of 1895.

(2.) It was contended inter alia that the suit itself was not competent and that the order of the District Collector on appeal which was confirmed by the Board of Revenue in second appeal was final and cannot be canvassed in a Civil Court. On this point the decision of the Court below was in favour of the plaintiff. Whether this view is right or not is a matter which gives room for discussion, but as the dismissal of the suit on the other ground, that is to say, on the merits, can be supported, we find it unnecessary to decide the question whether the suit itself is maintainable or not. On the merits, the only objection taken to the order dismissing plaintiff-appellant is that he was not heard or given notice by the Sub-Collector before he was dismissed though the dismissal-was because he had been convicted of a criminal offence which, in the opinion of the Sub-Collector, disqualified him for holding the office.

(3.) The contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant is that even before forming such an opinion, the Sub-Collector and the District Collector were bound to hear the convicted officer before they ordered his dismissal. The procedure to be followed in the matter of the dismissal of village officers under Act II of 1894 is to be found in Section 16 of the Act. Sub- section (2) of that section runs as follows: The District Collector or the Revenue Officer aforesaid, may, of his own motion or on complaint and after enquiry, fine, suspend, dismiss or remove any village officer for misconduct or for neglect of duty or incapacity as such village officer or for non- residence in the village arid shall record his reason for so doing in writing and furnish a copy of the same to the proprietor and to the village officer concerned. Every village officer convicted of an offence of the kind mentioned in Sub-section (1)(e) of Section 10 shall be dismissed.