SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
25th November, 1954.
M.C. MAHAJAN C.J.I., B.K. MUKHERJEA, S.R. DAS, BOSE, BHAGWATI, JAGANNADHA DAS AND VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.
P. Joseph John Appellant
Versus
State of Travancore-Cochin, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 90 of 1953.
Advocates appeared
Messrs. K. Thomas and M. R. Krishna Pillai, Advocates, for Appellant; Mr. Mathew P. Murickan, Advocate General for the State of Travancore-Cochin (Messrs. T. R. Balakrishna Ayyar and Sardar Bahadur, Advocates, with him), for Respondent.
-held, non-compliance with it will not vitiate the order made by the Govt.
-held, Art. 320 does not make it that state should consult the Commission as many times the Govt. servant against whom action has been taken, chooses to file review petitions.
Judgement
MAHAJAN C.J.I. : This appeal by leave of the High Court of Judicature of Travancore-Cochin at Ernakulam is directed against an order of a Full Bench of that court dismissing an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Government of the united State of Travancore-Cochin removing the appellant from service of the State and permanently debarring him from reappointment in service.
2. The facts giving rise to the petition and the appeal are these: The petitioner entered the service of the erstwhile Travancore State in the year 1928. By promotion he became the Executive Engineer, Electricity Department in August 1937 and subsequently Electrical Engineer to Government in October 1944. He was the Electric Engineer to Government on the 1st July 1949 when the States of Travancore and Cochin were integrated by a Covenant entered into between the rulers of the two States. By an order of the Government of the united State of Travancore-Cochin dated the 11th August 1949, he was appointed as the officiating Chief Engineer (Electricity) in the State.
In or about September 1949 the Government of the united State received serious complaints about the conduct and dealings of some of their senior officers and allegations of corruption, communalism, etc. were made against them. In December 1949 the Council of Ministers decided to take action against the appellant on a number of charges indicated in the resolution. On the 22nd December 1949, immediately after this resolution was passed, the petitioner was informed that he was suspended from service pending enquiry and he was requested to hand over charge to Sri K. P. Sridharan Nair forthwith. The petitioner complied with this order & handed over charge as directed. On the 21st March 1950 the fallowing notification was issued:
"Whereas Government are of opinion that there are sufficient grounds for making a formal and public inquiry into the truth of the imputation of misconduct of the officers mentioned below :
Government, under Section 3 of the Travancore Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 11 of 1122, hereby commit the said inquiry to Sri K. Sankaran, Judge, High Court, appointed Commissioner for the purpose.
Government are further pleased under Section 4 of the said Act to nominate Sri T. R. Balakrishna Ayyar, Government Pleader, High Court, to prosecute the inquiries on their behalf.
The inquiries shall be conducted as early as possible.
The officers referred to in para. 1 supra are :
1....... ...... ...... ......
2. Sri P. Joseph John".
The petitioner was informed by notice of the 24th April 1950 about this inquiry. The notification was signed by Shri K. G. Menon, Chief Secretary to Government.
3. Mr. Justice Sankaran took charge as Enquiry Commissioner and on the 11th May 1950 forwarded the articles of charges against the petitioner, the list of witnesses and the list of documents placed before him together with the notice regarding the commencement of the enquiry to Shri K.S. Raghavan, Secretary to Government, for service on the petitioner.
A few days before the date fixed for the commencement of the enquiry the petitioner made an application to the Enquiry Commissioner for a direction to the Prosecutor to produce the files and papers relating to the various charges in the office of the Commissioner and for permission to him and his counsel to inspect the same. This application was allowed and he and his advocate were allowed to inspect the relevant files in the presence of the Prosecutor or his deputy.
On the 20th May 1950 when the enquiry commenced, the petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charges by a written statement. He was defended during the enquiry by Shri K. P. Abraham, a leading member of the Bar. A preliminary objection was, taken to the Tribunal s jurisdiction on the basis of Article 20 of the Covenant entered into between the rulers of Travancore and Cochin and it was contended that the proceedings before the Commissioner were criminal in nature and
relied on : Dattatraya Moreshwar v. The State of Bombay and others
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.