Rajamannar,C.J. - This is an appeal from the judgment of Rajagopala Ayyangar J., in W.P. No. 844 of 1952. That petition was filed by the respondent for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash an order of the Government, dated 7th June, 1951, dismissing him form service. The petitioner joined the service of the Government in the Revenue Department about thirty years ago and he was a permanent member of that department in the Coimbatore District. He was Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Pollachi, from 14th March to 23rd June, 1949. As such he was engaged in the trial of a case of wrongful confinement and extortion. Two charges were framed against him and an inquiry was directed to be made by the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings. The two charges were (1) that he demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000 as a bribe for acquitting the accused in the case before him, and (2) that he demanded and received illegal gratification of two sums of Rs. 500, each from one Gopalaswami Goundar promising to convict the accused concerned in the case filed by him against one Chinnaswami Goundar and others. The Tribunal, after an elaborate enquiry, found in regard to charge (1) that the charge was proved to the limited extent, namely, that the accused officer demanded a bribe of Rs. 10,000. The Tribunal however found that no money was actually paid. The Tribunal held that the second charge had not been proved at all. The Tribunal recommended that the officer may be dismissed from service. On receipt of the report, the Government, after consultation with the Board of Revenue, called upon the respondent to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. A copy of the Tribunals report was also sent to him. The respondent then sent in his explanation, but the Government by their order dated 7th June, 1951, accepted the findings and the recommendation of the Tribunal and directed that he be dismissed from service with effect from 23rd June, 1949, the date from which he had been kept under suspension. It is to quash this order that the writ petition was filed. Three contentions were raised on behalf of the respondent before Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., who heard and disposed of the petition; namely, (1) that the Disciplinary Tribunal had no jurisdiction to inquire into the complaint against the petitioner because the petitioner was an officer in the Judicial Department, (2) that the Government had no power to refer his case to the tribunal because they had previously decided that the case against the petitioner should be tried in a Court of law and not by the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings, and (3) that the charge found to have been proved against him was not ‘corruption’ within the meaning of Act II of 1947. The learned Judge upheld the first and third contentions, but rejected the second contention. In the result he held that the order of dismissal was invalid and quashed it. The State of Madras has filed the above appeal from the said order.

For a consideration of the first contention, it is sufficient to refer to rule 4 of the Madras Civil Services Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal Rules, 1948, made by the Government in exercise of the power vested in them by section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935. That rule runs as follows:

“The Government may subject to the provisions of rule 5 refer to the tribunal:

(a) cases relating to Government servants on a monthly salary of Rs. 150 and above in respect of matters involving corruption on the part of such Government servants in the discharge of their official duties;

(b) all appeals to the Government from Government servants against disciplinary orders passed by heads of departments and other competent authorities on charges of corruption and

(c) any other case or class of cases which the Government consider should be dealt with by the Tribunal provided that cases arising in the Judicial Department and against Government servants in the subordinate ranks of the police forces of the rank of Sub-Inspector a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document