The Chief Justice.-The appellant is the Governor-General in Council. The appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondent in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam. He was the chief signaller in the Head Post Office at Kumbakonam. By an order dated the 4th April, 1941, which was confirmed on appeal by the Postmaster-General, Madras, the respondent was dismissed from Government service. He filed the suit for a declaration that the order of dismissal was “illegal, void and inoperative” and for other reliefs. The Subordinate Judge granted the declaration asked for, but refused further relief. The appellant says that the Subordinate Judge erred in granting the respondent a declaration and in rejecting a plea advanced by the plaintiff that the suit was not maintainable because the provisions of section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code had not been complied with.

In or about the month of October, 1939, the respondent was suspected of having misappropriated monies which had come into his hands in the course of his employment, and consequently was suspended by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Tanjore division, who reported the matter to the police. The result was that the police prosecuted the respondent for criminal breach of trust. After a lengthy hearing the respondent was acquitted by the Magistrate on the 9th September, 1940. The Post Office authorities were not satisfied with the Magistrate’s findings and decided to proceed against the respondent departmentally. By an order, dated the 1st March, 1941, the Superintendent framed five charges against him. It is unnecessary to set them out in detail. It is sufficient to state that they were all charges of dereliction of duty, including a charge of having collected money by the issue of bogus receipts. The respondent was called upon to explain the charges within a week of the receipt of the memorandum served upon him and to show cause (1) why a loss to Government of Rs. 900 should not be recovered from him; and (2) why he should not be dismissed from service. He was informed that a suitable opportunity would be afforded to him if he wished to be heard in person.

On the 5th March, 1941, the respondent wrote to the Superintendent acknowledging receipt of the memorandum of charges and asking to be allowed one month’s time to offer his defence. The request for further time was based on the assertion that he required the production of documents filed in the proceedings before the Magistrate. The request was granted. In the letter dated the 7th March, 1941, the Superintendent informed him that he should submit his explanation by the 1st April. On the 23rd March, 1941, the respondent wrote to the Superintendent as follows:

“With reference to your memo. of charge No. F-5/13 of 1st March, 1941, I humbly beg to submit that the charges thereon have been elaborately dealt with by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kumbakonam, before whom I stood the trial by a Court of Law for the same charges. I was found not guilty of the offence charged, as you are aware of. I have at this stage nothing further to submit to you in further proof of my innocence.”

On the 24th March, the Superintendent wrote to the respondent reminding him. that the time for submitting his explanation expired on the 31st March, and that he should submit it so as to reach the Superintendent’s office not later than the 1st April, 1941. He was also informed that no further extension of time would be granted to him “on any account.”

The respondent ignored this letter and consequently the Superintendent embarked upon the inquiry. In a report dated the 4th April, 1941, he held that all the charges had been proved. He passed an order directing that the respondent be dismissed from the service with effect from the 1st April, 1941, and that he should pay Rs. 600, part of the loss which the Government had suffered. The respondent had the right of appeal to the Postmaster-General and he exercised it in a letter addressed to the Postma

Click Here to Read the rest of this document