The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authority responsible for conducting an enquiry and imposing penalties must be determined based on the relevant rules and statutes. Additionally, the right of a party to be represented by counsel at an enquiry is determined by the specific provisions of the law.

Horace Owen Compton Beasley, C.J.

1. This appeal is from an order passed by Gentle, J., on two applications under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act praying for an order restraining the Collector of Salt Revenue, Madras, by a writ of prohibition from conducting or holding or proceeding with an enquiry into the conduct of the two applicants. The appellant was the applicant in No. 349 of 1937. The order passed by Gentle, J., covered the contentions of both of the applicants which were identical. An interim injunction had been granted on the 8th February. Gentle, J., by his order dissolved that injunction, discharged the rule nisi and dismissed the applications.

2. The appellant is an Assistant Commissioner of Salt and Customs, Central Division, Madras, to which office he was appointed on the 16th March, 1936, before which date he was Inspector of Salt and Customs, Negapatam. Certain charges had been made against the appellant and an enquiry under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules was proceeding on the date of the applications, the enquiry being conducted by the Collector of Salt Revenue, Madras, Mr. H. Greenfield. Previously, on the 5th November, 1936, Mr. Greenfield ordered the suspension of the appellant pending investigation of his conduct, and that of the other applicant before Gentle, J., whilst in charge of Karaikal frontier, Negapatam Circle. The applicant, as already stated, sought to restrain the Collector by writ of prohibition from proceeding with the enquiry. The applicants alleged that the enquiry was irregular and contrary to law in the following respect, namely, (a) the body which has authority to remove, dismiss or reduce the applicants was the Central Board of Revenue and the enquiry should be held by them and not by the Collector of Customs: (b) the applicants are entitled to be represented at the enquiry by an advocate and this having been denied to them the enquiry is not in conformity with the provisions of the law; and (c) they have not had communicated to them in respect of the charges made against them a statement of the allegations on which each charge was based. In the appeal, ground (c) was not pressed by the appellant.

3. I do not propose to set out in this judgment in detail all the facts or all the relevant rules of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules because they have been fully set out in the judgment of the learned trial Judge; I will only refer to those which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of the questions before us.

4. With regard to ground (a) Section 96-B (1) of the Government of India Act says that no person in the service of the Crown in India may be dismissed by any authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed; and it is common ground that the appellant was appointed by the Central Board of Revenue. Therefore he can only be dismissed by that authority and not by the Collector of Customs and the Central Board of Revenue cannot delegate that power to the Collector of Customs. The Central Board of Revenue has by delegation by the Governor-General in Council the power to impose the penalties contained in Rule 49 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. They are seven in number including dismissal and only two of them, namely, (i) and (v) censure and suspension--may be imposed by the Collector of Customs. It follows, therefore, that if charges of a sufficiently grave nature as to justify dismissal are proved, only the Central Board of Revenue has the power to order it and this is the foundation for the argument in support of point (a) which is that it is only the authority having the power to dismiss the servant that can hold the enquiry under Rule 55 and upon this point we have had addressed to us a very careful and learned argument by Mr. Jayarama Aiyar. The learned trial Judge has to a large extent based his view upon the words of Rule 55, and it is that the rule contemplate