Judgement

GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I.: The respondent, A. R. Srinivasan, entered Government service in the State of Madras and was first appointed as Supervisor in the Public Works Department. After about 21 years of service, he rose to the rank of an Executive Engineer and was appointed as the Project Engineer in charge of the Manimuthar Project in the Tirunelveli district. He was holding this post from 1st August 1951 to the 30th September, 1954. It appears that certain complaints of corruption were received against the respondent by the appellant, the State of Madras, and were investigated by the C.I.D. As a result of these investigations, a reference was made to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Madras, which framed two charges against the respondent on the 3rd September, 1954. On the 30th September, 1954, the respondent was transferred to Madras. On a further reference by the appellant, the said Tribunal framed three additional charges against the respondent on the 31st December, 1954. All these charges were in respect of acts of corruption alleged to have been committed by the respondent.

2. After the said two sets of charges were communicated to the respondent, the Tribunal held an enquiry. At this enquiry, 18 witnesses were examined for the appellant and 83 Exhibits were filed in support of the charges. As a result of the enquiry, the Tribunal found that out of the five charges, the first and the last charges were not proved, although there was some suspicion of guilt in respect of a gold wrist watch chain mentioned in charge No. 1. The Tribunal also found that the remaining three charges had been proved against the respondent. Having recorded these findings, the Tribunal recommended that the respondent should be compulsorily retired from service.

3. On receipt of the report made by the Tribunal (Item No. 7), the appellant provisionally accepted its findings and came to the conclusion that the respondent should be compulsorily retired from service. Accordingly, a notice dated 13th June 1956 (Item No. 8) was served on the respondent. By this notice, the respondent was told that the Government had provisionally accepted the findings of the Tribunal and had arrived at the provisional conclusion that he should be compulsorily retired from service. The respondent was then called upon to show cause, within one month of the receipt of the memorandum, why he should not be compulsorily retired from service. This notice intimated to the respondent that he may peruse the connected records in the Office of the Tribunal and take notes or copies thereof to enable him to submit his explanation. He was warned that the period of one month indicated in the notice for submitting his explanation would not be extended. Accordingly, the respondent submitted an elaborate explanation in support of his case that he was completely innocent of all the charges framed against him.

4. Thereafter, the appellant sent the matter to the Madras Public Service Commission for its advice. On the 2nd April, 1957, the Commission sent its advice to the appellant (Item No. 9). In this communication, the Commission stated that "it is generally in agreement with the findings of the Tribunal". It observed that the respondent s reply to the show cause notice was unconvincing. "The prosecution evidence, as a whole," said this communication, "leaves in one s mind a strong suspicion of corrupt practices on the part of the accused officer although some of the individual instances may not stand the test of strict legal proof as in a criminal case." The Commission also added that "according to the principles laid down in G. O. No. 902, Public (Services), dated the 28th May, 1938, dismissal or removal would be justified in this case. The proposed penalty of compulsory retirement errs on the side of leniency, but it serves the purpose (viz., that the accused officer should no longer be retained in service) well enough. The Commission agrees that in all the circumstances o