Back
1956 Supreme(AP) 120
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Umamaheshwaram, J.
M. Ramamoorthi
Versus
State of Madras
Writ Petns. Nos. 904 and 905 of 1952
Decided On : 03-04-1956
M.S. Ramachandra Rao and C.V. Narasimhacharyulu, for Petitioner; M. Seshachalapathi, Govt. Pleader, for Respondents.
The Court held that the petitioner was not guilty of corruption as defined in Rule 2 (a) of Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal Rules, as no loss was caused to the Government by the issue of E forms.
Headnote:
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - CORRUPTION - ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES ACT, 1946 - PREVENTION OF BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION ACT, 1947 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935 - MADRAS CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES - WRIT OF CERTIORARI - ART. 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION - ART. 311(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a grain purchase tahsildar, was charged with corruption and dismissed from service. He challenged the validity of the orders passed by the Tribunal and Government removing him from service by filing two writs under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioner was not guilty of corruption as defined in Rule 2 (a) of Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal Rules, as no loss was caused to the Government by the issue of E forms. The Court also held that the finding of the Tribunal on the first charge was vitiated by the omission to refer to the material portion of Ex. D-15 wherein the petitioner brought to the notice of his superiors that the claim put forward by the brothers was unfounded. The Court further held that the enquiry was not properly held by the Tribunal and that the petitioner was greatly prejudiced thereby.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was guilty of corruption as defined in Rule 2 (a) of Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal Rules? 2. Whether the finding of the Tribunal on the first charge was vitiated by the omission to refer to the material portion of Ex. D-15? 3. Whether the enquiry was properly held by the Tribunal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioner was not guilty of corruption as defined in Rule 2 (a) of Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal Rules, as no loss was caused to the Government by the issue of E forms. The Court relied on the judgment of the Sessions Judge, West Godaveri, which found that only 506 bags were unaccounted for and that the sale proceeds of those bags alone should be confiscated and credited to the Government. 2. The Court held that the finding of the Tribunal on the first charge was vitiated by the omission to refer to the material portion of Ex. D-15 wherein the petitioner brought to the notice of his superiors that the claim put forward by the brothers was unfounded. The Court observed that this omission was an error apparent on the face of the record which vitiated the judgment of the Tribunal. 3. The Court held that the enquiry was not properly held by the Tribunal and that the petitioner was greatly prejudiced thereby. The Court noted that the Tribunal refused to summon witnesses and produce documents required by the petitioner without giving sufficient reasons.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the two writs and quashed G. O. Ms. No. 2005 D/- 9-7-52 of the Government and the order of the Tribunal in Departmental enquiry No. 31/50.
The petitioner was working as grain purchase tahsildar in Tadepalligudem in 1947-48. Four charges were framed against him by the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings in departmental enquiry No. 31/1950. The Tribunal held that charges 3 and 4 were not proved. In respect of charge No. 1, the Tribunal found as follows :
"Under charge 1, I have held that, with full knowledge that the excess stock in the possession of the miller Uma Kasi Viswanatham had been seized by the Police, the accused officer connived with him in regularising it by allowing him to issue E forms in the names of his brothers and thereby he caused loss to the Government to the extent of the value of 506 bags as found by the learned Sessions Judge."
2. The Tribunal also held that charge 2, namely, that the petitioner had taken a bribe, was established. Recommendation was made to the Government that the petitioner should be dismissed from service.
3. The Government communicated the order of the Tribunal to the petitioner and asked him to show cause, within one month from the date of the receipt of the memorandum, why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner thereupon made a written representation dated 8-12-1951 before the Government.
On 9-7-1952, the Government passed an order dismissing him from service on the ground that the first charge was duly proved. In respect of the second charge, the Government took the view that benefit of doubt should be given to him. The petitioner filed the two writs challenging the validity of the orders passed by the Tribunal and Government removing him from service.
4. The first contention raised by Sri M.S. Ramachandra Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, was that as no loss was caused to the Government by the issue of E forms, the petitioner was not guilty of corruption as defined in Rule 2 (a) of Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal Rules. In order to appreciate his argument, it is necessary to set out a few relevant facts.
On 4-9-48, Sri Satyanarayana Chowdhary, Deputy Superintendent of Police, X Branch C.I.D. paid a surprise visit to Seetharamanajaneya Rice Mill, Gundugolunu and seized 2,290 bags of paddy as being the excess over the book balance as per the register in the mill and entrusted them to the village munsif. The District Supply Officer, examined as P.W. 5, directed the petitioner on 7-9-48 to check the stock in the mill and ascertain the-excess in order that appropriate action might be taken against the miller Kasi Viswanatham. Though, the petitioner visited the village on 8-9-48, he did not carry out the directions of the District Supply Officer and proceed to the mill.
On 5-10-1948, he inspected the mill and recorded the statements of Kasi Viswanatham and his three brothers. The report sent by him was marked as Ex. D-15 and the statements recorded by him were annexed as the enclosures thereto. He reported that the total quantity of paddy stored consisted of 6597 bags. In Para 3 of the report, he stated as follows :
"I suspect that the miller bas given a false explanation by saying that the paddy belonged to his brothers as I find from X register of this mill that about 1550 bags of paddy were already sold by these three brothers in the course of this year on 4-2-48, 8-2-48, 9-2-48, 17-3-48, 29-6-48 and 15-7-48 while they got only 1300 hags towards their share from their lands in Agadallanka and Pothunuru village according to their statements.
It is also seen by me during the course of my verification that some paddy found in the mill may be of the second sort while the entire stock is shown, in accounts as first sort paddy. This needs some technical scrutiny as the distinction between those two sor
