JUDGMENT :- In this writ petition Mr. T. N. Subramania Iyer, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges the proceedings taken by the State Government, and which ultimately resulted in the passing of the order, Ext. P-8, by the respondent on 20-6-1961. Under Ext. P-8, it will be seen that the State Government are of the view that, misbehaviour as against the petitioner, has been proved and that he is dismissed from service with effect from 13-2-1961, the date on which he was placed under suspension, pending enquiry into the charges framed as against him.

2. The petitioner joined as a clerk in the Land Revenue Department in 1107 and he was occupying various positions after that period and ultimately in 1955, he was promoted and posted as Sub-Magistrate, Irinjalakuda. On 6-10-1956, the Bar Association, Irinjalakuda, passed a resolution alleging serious misconduct as against the petitioner and requesting for action being taken as against him. On a copy of the resolution being sent to the High Court, the latter directed the District Magistrate, Trichur to conduct a preliminary enquiry in the matter.

3. The -District Magistrate, Trichur conducted an enquiry and his report is Ext. P-1 dated 19-12-1957. It is not really necessary to go into the various matters mentioned in the report because that is only more or less a sort of a preliminary enquiry directed to be conducted by the authorities concerned to decide as to whether disciplinary proceedings have to be initiated as against the petitioner. But it will be seen that the view of the District Magistrate appears to be that as regards the allegations about the petitioner - having taken bribe, though there are sufficient materials that the Magistrate has received illegal gratification, the evidence is not of such a nature as will justify a conviction for taking bribe, if a criminal proceeding is launched against him. There is also the view expressed by the District Magistrate that the petitioner has allowed parties in pending cases to see him at his house and that he has also gone out of the way in going to the office of the Syndicate for an attestation and that he has been indiscriminate in the matter of imposing punishments and in taking up and deciding cases on plea of guilty to the charge made by the parties, even in cases where these parties had specifically denied the charges in the first instance.

4. On the basis of this report, the State Government ultimately decided to take disciplinary proceedings as against the petitioner, and accordingly directed proceedings to be taken under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, , 1122, (Act XI of 1122).

5. In the usual course, the Enquiry Commissioner was appointed; and though there is on record material to show that there has been a change of personnel, the petitioner does not seem to have had any grievance so far as the actual nature of the enquiry itself was concerned.

6. Under Ext. P-4, six charges have been framed as against the petitioner and the Commissioner was directed to inquire into the same. The six charges are as follows :

"Charge I : - That you, Sri A. Parameswara Iyer, while working as Sub Magistrate, Irinjalakuda (Mukundapuram) in the Judicial service of the State in the year 1955 and 1956, did accept, by misusing your official position and Sub Magistrate illegal gratification from the persons noted in Col. 1 below, who were either parties to, or connected with the parties to the cases pending before you noted in Col. 2, the amounts in cash or in kind, noted in Col. 3 on or about the dates noted in Col. 4.

Col. 1. Col. 2. Col. 3. Col. 4.

1.Sri. Raghava Menon. C. C. 586/56 Rs. 5 Sept. 56.

2. " Thomas Vareed. Irinjalakuda (Crime No. 69/66) Rs. 5 1956.

3. " Ramankutty. C. C. 529/55 Rs. 10 12 or 13-9-1956.

4. " Rappal. C. C. 594/55 Rs. 6 Sept. or Oct. 56.

5. " Lonappan C. C. 264/54 Rs. 15 in kind 1956.

6. " Sankunny Nair. C. C. 432/55 Rs. 5 Sept. or Oct. 56.

Charge No. II : - That during the said period, you have allowed parties

Click Here to Read the rest of this document