Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1971 Supreme(Mad) 530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. Veeraswamy, C. J. and V. V. Raghavan, J.
The State of Madras, represented by the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9
Versus
M. Kandaswamy
W.A. No. 210 of 1967.
Decided On : 06 August 1971

Advocates:
The Government Pleader, for Appellants.
Ramachandran and M/s. Rom and Reddy, for Respondent.

The High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to examine the evidence and satisfy itself on the correctness of the complaint that there was no evidence to support the finding of the Tribunal or that no Tribunal with a judicial cast of mind could possibly have reached the conclusion as in the present case or that the Tribunal acted prejudicially and indulged in speculation instead of attempting to draw a reasonable inference from the proved facts.

Headnote:
WRIT PETITION - DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE - CHARGES OF BRIBERY AND MISCONDUCT - EVIDENCE - SCRUTINY BY HIGH COURT - JURISDICTION - ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:

The respondent, an Assistant Public Prosecutor, was dismissed from service following an inquiry by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings. The respondent filed a writ petition challenging the order of dismissal, contending that the charges against him were not proved, that the Tribunal was biased, and that the Governor had summarily rejected his appeal without assigning any reason.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the Tribunal's findings were not supported by evidence and that the Tribunal had failed to consider the evidence in a fair and impartial manner. The Court also held that the Governor had erred in summarily rejecting the respondent's appeal without assigning any reason.
Issues: 1. Whether the Tribunal's findings were supported by evidence. 2. Whether the Tribunal was biased. 3. Whether the Governor erred in summarily rejecting the respondent's appeal without assigning any reason.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the Tribunal's findings were not supported by evidence because: a. The Tribunal relied on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness. b. The Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of the respondent's witnesses. c. The Tribunal's reasoning was faulty and based on speculation. 2. The High Court held that the Tribunal was biased because: a. The Tribunal failed to consider all of the evidence. b. The Tribunal made findings of fact that were not supported by the evidence. c. The Tribunal's reasoning was based on surmises and not on acceptable evidence. 3. The High Court held that the Governor erred in summarily rejecting the respondent's appeal without assigning any reason because: a. The Governor is required to consider all appeals on their merits. b. The Governor's failure to assign a reason for rejecting the appeal was a violation of the respondent's right to due process.
Final Decision: The High Court quashed the order of dismissal and directed the respondent to be reinstated in service.

Raghavan. J.-The State of Madras is the appellant. The respondent entered service as Assistant Public Prosecutor, Grade II in 1942 at Coimbatore and was promoted to Grade I in 1945 and posted to Erode. He held the post till 1958 when as a result of investigation by the Crime Branch into certain complaints, the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings conducted proceedings dated 24th May, 1958 against him. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings framed 14 charges and conducted an enquiry. After the evidence had been fully recorded and at the stage of hearing arguments, there was a change in the personnel of the Tribunal. The succeeding Officer heard the oral arguments, perused the written arguments as well and submitted his report to the Government. Out of the 14 charges framed against the respondent the Tribunal found that only four charges were proved. The Government accepted the report of the Tribunal and issued a show cause notice to the respondent to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The respondent submitted his explanation. After considering the same, the Government passed G. O. Ms. No. 1438, Home, dated 25th April, 1961, dismissing the respondent from service. The respondent filed an appeal to the Governor and the Governor, in G. O. Ms. No. 3724, Home dated 26th October, 1961 passed an order stating that the respondent’s memorial was rejected without giving any reason and treating the appeal filed by the respondent as a mere memorial. The respondent submitted another petition to consider the appeal filed by him on the merits as required by the rules in view of the fact that his appeal was disposed of as a memorial. The respondent was informed by Memorandum dated 12th June, 1962 that all aspects of the respondent’s appeal were considered in passing G. O. Ms. No. 3724, Home dated 26th October, 1961. The respondent thereupon filed W. P. No. 127 of 1963 in this Court seeking to quash the order of the Government.

2. In support of his writ petition the respondent raised the following principal contentions; (1) The charges framed were vague and indefinite and lacked precise particulars; (2) The findings of the Tribunal were perverse and based on no evidence or a misreading of the evidence recorded; (3) The statutory appeal to the Governor was summarily rejected without assigning any reason; (4) Certain arguments which were not supported by the evidence on record were presented by the prosecution and the Tribunal placed reliance upon the same; (5) In respect of some of the charges of bribery there was no corroboration by an independent witness; (6) The evidence recorded on behalf of the defence was totally ignored or explained away without due consideration; (7) The evidence was viewed from a bias perspective speculatively and not impartially; (8) No Tribunal with a judicial cast of mind can possibly reach the conclusion which the Tribunal had come to in this case; (9) Where the whole area of evidence was in favour of the defence such evidence had been discarded without reason. The State of Madras filed a counter denying the averments in the petition and stating that the Tribunal examined the matter carefully and impartially that the charges were clear and specific, that every opportunity was given to the respondent to defend himself, that the findings of the Tribunal were supported by evidence, and that this Court has no jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to reexamine and re-assess the evidence as if in an appeal.

3. In order to examine the above contentions, Srinivasan, J., who heard the writ petition had to consider the evidence broadly, the learned Judge being fully alive to the limitation imposed under Article 226, namely, that he was functioning not as appellate authority but had to be satisfied whether the specific attack made against the order of the Tribunal was justified.

4. The learned Judge set out the first of the charges held proved, namely, charge No. 2 which related to the paymen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1971 Supreme(Mad) 530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASK. Veeraswamy, C. J. and V. V. Raghavan, J.The State of Madras, represented by the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9VersusM. KandaswamyW.A. No. 210 of 1967.Decided On : 06 August 1971

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. Veeraswamy, C. J. and V. V. Raghavan, J.
The State of Madras, represented by the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9
Versus
M. Kandaswamy
W.A. No. 210 of 1967.
Decided On : 06 August 1971