The Chief Justice.-The petitioner was employed as an Assistant District Health Officer in the Public Health Department of the Madras State and he acted as the Municipal Health Officer at Srivilliputtur from November, 1947, till about the middle of March, 1948. On complaints against him from the residents of the locality sent to the Director of Public Health and other authorities, there was first an enquiry by the District Health Officer and subsequently by an officer of the Crime Investigation Department. The Government finally referred the matter to the Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal for an enquiry. The Tribunal called upon the petitioner to show cause against certain charges which included a charge of corruption. The petitioner filed a written statement meeting the charges. The Tribunal proceeded with the enquiry, recorded evidence and submitted its report dated 31st October, 1949, to the Government. The Tribunal recommended that the petitioner may be removed from service. Government apparently did not agree that this was a sufficient penalty as, in their opinion, the charges were proved beyond doubt and therefore by order dated 3rd March, 1950, dismissed the petitioner from service with effect from 10th March, 1950. Against this order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred an appeal to His Excellency the Governor under the Civil Services (Classification and Appeal) Rules. This appeal was rejected on 7th July, 1950.. The petitioner now seeks for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the orders of Government dated 3rd March, 1950 and 7th July, 1950.

The learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to bring the case under Article 227 of the Constitution under which this Court is given superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.. We have no hesitation no whatever in holding that neither the Government nor the Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal would fail within Article 227.

The question is whether any interference under Article 226 will be justified in this case. Under Article 310 (1) of the Constitution, except as expressly provided by the Constitution, every person who is a member of a civil service of the Union and every person who is a member of a civil service of a State holds office during the pleasure of the President or the Governor respectively. Article 311 lays down two requirements to be fulfilled before a person who is a member of a civil service of a State is dismissed or removed. They are (1) that he shall not be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed and (2) that he shall not be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him. The proviso exempts the observance of the second requirement in certain circumstances, e.g., where a person is dismissed or removed of reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led, to his conviction on a criminal charge. Admittedly both these requirements have been fulfilled in the case of the petitioner. He was not dismissed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. Before he was dismissed, he was given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against his dismissal. He was given notice of the charges against him and he was given the opportunity of meeting them. In these circumstances, we fail to see anything which calls for our interference.

It is however contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is another implied requirement that civil servants in the position of the petitioner can be dismissed or removed only for misconduct and at one stage of the argument he even went to the length of contending that in the case of a charge like corruption, the petitioner must have been convicted by a criminal Court for that offence, or, in any event, that this Court must be satisfied in the exercise of crimina

Click Here to Read the rest of this document