The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of when disciplinary proceedings commence under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955.

1. This is an appeal from the order of Vaidialingam J., dismissing O. P. No. 485 of 1963 filed by the appellant for quashing an order, Ext. P. 11, dated 8 31963 placing him under suspension. The appellant, a member of the Indian Administrative Service, was the First Member of the Board of Revenue at the time he was suspended. The validity of the order of suspension was challenged on a question of jurisdiction, viz., that under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, an order of suspension could not be passed by the Government under R.7 before charges were framed against the officer in disciplinary proceedings against him. It was held that the word'charges' in R.7 meant, not the charges framed against the officer in respect of which he had to answer in an inquiry in respect of the same but the allegations of misconduct against him. It was further held that disciplinary proceedings commenced when allegations of misconduct were received by the Government and investigation of the same started. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

2. Before considering the points raised in appeal it is necessary to state that on the submission made by petitioner's counsel, the learned judge passed an order on C. M. P. No. 1685 of 1963 that arguments on the original petition would be restricted to the question of jurisdiction and that the State need not answer questions of fact raised in the petitioner's affidavit.

3. The impugned order, Ext. P. 11, reads as follows:

"The Government have received several petitions containing serious allegations of official misconduct against Sri S. Govinda Menon, I. A. S., First Member, Board of Revenue, and formerly Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration). Preliminary enquiries caused to be conducted into the allegations have shown, prima facie, that the officer is guilty of corruption, nepotism and other irregularities of a grave nature. The Kerala High Court had also occasion to comment on the conduct of the officer in their judgment O. P. No. 2306 of 1962 delivered on 12th February 1963. The judgment begins with the observation that "this case, if it has served little else, has served to expose a disquieting state of affairs regarding the disposal of valuable forest lands belonging to a religious institution known as the Sree Pulpully Devaswom of which I trust due notice will be taken by the competent authority in the interests of the public administration and the preservation of our forest wealth no less than in the interests of this particular institution."

The judgment in the above case and the preliminary report of the X-Branch Police have disclosed the following grave charges of serious irregularity and official misconduct on the part of the accused officer.

(1) Notwithstanding the provisions in the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and the Rules issued thereunder the accused officer had in several cases initiated proposals for the disposal of valuable properties belonging to several Devaswoms and then sanctioned these proposals under S.29 of the Act. - Regarding this the High Court has observed as follows:

"We find from the documents filed in the case and from his own counter-affidavit that the Commissioner (accused officer) was directing the petitioner in his capacity as 'fit person' discharging the functions of the trustee to grant 99 year leases of extensive forest lands with the right to the valuable timber standing thereon to particular persons on stated terms, without any public auction and that he was forwarding applications from these persons to the petitioner for disposal and that on applications by the petitioner for granting leases accordingly he was according permission under S.29 of the Act holding that the leases were beneficial to the institution. It was quite improper for the commissioner to have initiated proposals for lease and then acted in judgment over his proposals."

(2) One of the persons to whom the accu