Departmental enquiry held without jurisdiction.

The petitioner had the post of Village Karnam of Kamakkapalayam village in Salem District. It was a post which was not governed by the provisions of the Hereditary Village Offices Act III of 1895. Charges were framed against the petitioner by the Revenue Divisional Officer, and after an enquiry, the Revenue Divisional Officer directed on 9th February, 1953, that the petitioner should be dismissed from the post. The petitioner appealed to the Collector against the order of dismissal, but the appeal was dismissed on 23rd March, 1953. Further appeals to the Board of Revenue and to the Government also failed. The petitioner applied under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari to set aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated, 9th February, 1953, which was successively confirmed by the Collector, the Board of Revenue and the Government.

The grounds on which the validity of the order of dismissal was attacked by the learned counsel for the petitioner were as follows: (1) The provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution were violated and petitioner was not given the opportunity prescribed by Article 311(2) to show cause against his dismissal. (2) The enquiry conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer was itself vitiated, because the petitioner was not given a real and effective opportunity to defend himself in those proceedings. (3) The charges as framed against the petitioner disclosed an offence of cheating punishable under section 420, Indian Penal Code, and the Revenue Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to initiate departmental proceedings to punish the petitioner.

The last of the grounds is easiest disposed of. Whether or not the ingredients of an offence punishable under section 420, Indian Penal Code, had been made out, whether or not the petitioner could have been prosecuted in a criminal Court, that did not affect the jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer to enquire into the truth of the charges against the petitioner in a departmental enquiry. The learned counsel for the petitioner represented over and over again that the petitioner would welcome a trial in a criminal Court. But that is not an answer to the question whether the Revenue Divisional Officer had jurisdiction to frame charges, and if those changes were proved, to punish without recourse to a criminal Court.

The contention that the petitioner was not given a real and effective opportunity to defend himself in the proceedings before the Revenue Divisional Officer was supported by the averments in paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 12 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner. On 8th July, 1952, when the Revenue Divisional Officer enquired into the charge., the petitioner asked for permission to engage a counsel to defend him. That was refused. I am unable to hold that that amounts to . a denial of real and effective opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself against the charges framed against him. There was no specific rule governing such departmental enquiries which provided for assistance of counsel. Nor could any principle of natural justice be invoked in support of a claim, that in every charge leading to a departmental enquiry, assistance of counsel must be given. Neither the nature of the charges framed agai«st the petitioner - he was charged with having received sums from various people on the false representation that he would get them lands assigned on Dharkast - nor the nature of the evidence furnished by some of these persons made it impossible or even difficult fur the petitioner to defend himself against those charges by cross-examining those witnesses without the help of a counsel. Refusal at that stage to give the petitioner the assistance of a counsel did not therefore vitiate the enquiry.

On 8th July, 1952, the petitioner, besides asking for assistance of a counsel also asked for an adjournment, and that was refused, and the witnesses in support of the charge were examined by the Revenue Divis