Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR
C.S.Rajagopala Ayyar
Versus
State of Madras, represented by the Collector of Coimbatore
Writ Petn. No.844 of 1952
Decided On : 7 May, 1954
DISMISSAL OF GOVERNMENT SERVANT - CORRUPTION - JURISDICTION OF TRIBUNAL - VALIDITY OF ORDER OF DISMISSAL - ARTICLE 311(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a dismissed Government servant, challenged the order of dismissal on the grounds that the Disciplinary Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to inquire into the complaint against him, the Government lacked the authority to refer his case to the Tribunal, and the charge of corruption found against him did not constitute corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to inquire into the complaint against the petitioner because he was an officer in the judicial department, which was excluded from the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the relevant rules. 2. The Government had the authority to refer the petitioner's case to the Tribunal, as they had the power to review their previous decision to prosecute him in a court of law. 3. The charge of corruption found against the petitioner did not constitute corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, as it involved a single instance of demanding a bribe, which did not meet the definition of corruption under the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the Disciplinary Tribunal had jurisdiction to inquire into the complaint against the petitioner. 2. Whether the Government had the authority to refer the petitioner's case to the Tribunal. 3. Whether the charge of corruption found against the petitioner constituted corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The proviso to Rule 4(c) of the Madras Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1948, which excluded cases arising in the judicial department from the Tribunal's jurisdiction, applied to the petitioner's case, as he was a member of the judicial department. 2. Rule 5(b) of the Rules did not preclude the Government from reviewing its decision to prosecute the petitioner in a court of law and referring his case to the Tribunal instead. 3. The definition of corruption under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, required habitual acceptance or attempts to obtain gratification or valuable things, which was not established in the petitioner's case.
Final Decision: The order of dismissal of the petitioner from service was quashed as violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India due to the lack of jurisdiction of the Tribunal and the absence of a valid charge of corruption.
ORDER : - The petitioner in this writ petition is a dismissed Government servant and he seeks to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ for quashing the order of dismissal. The facts necessary to appreciate the legal points raised by the petitioner against the order of his dismissal are these: The petitioner had put in nearly thirty years of service under the Government of Madras and the last post that he held was as Sty. Sub-Magistrate, Pollachi in Coimbatore District. While so he was engaged in the trial of a case of wrongful confinement and extortion against one Chinnaswami Gounder, an influential and wealthy person of the place, and his two sons and some others between March and June 1949. On 21-6-1949 an application was filed for the adjournment of the case on production of a medical certificate by the principal accused. This was granted and on the next day the case was transferred to the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Pollachi.
2. The circumstances which led to the transfer of the case from the file of the petitioners court to that of the Additional First Class Magistrate was that a statement was made by one Sethurama Goundan before the District Magistrate, Coimbatore that the petitioner personally negotiated for a bribe with the said individual as a condition for acquitting the accused. The petitioner was immediately placed under suspension and the District Magistrate referred the complaint against the petitioner to the "X" branch of the C.I.D. of police for investigation. The Government after considering the report of the C.I.D. referred the case against the petitioner for enquiry and report to the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings. The charges which were framed against the petitioner and which were enquired into by the Tribunal were:
Charge I: "That you, when you were stationary Sub-Magistrate, Poilachi, abused your position and on or about 13-6-1949 when Sri P.K. Sethuramaswami Goundar, Chairman, Municipal Council, met you, in the course of your conversation promised to help the accused in C.C. No.2008 of 1948 on the file of the Sty. Sub Magistrate, Poilachi if they would pay you some money; on or about 14-6-1949 while receiving a sum of Rs.1000 from the aforesaid P.K. Sethuramaswami Goundar on behalf of Sri M.R. Chinnasami Gounaar of Muthur one of the accused in the aforesaid case, demanded that a sum of Rs.10,000, should be paid if the accused wanted to be acquitted; on or about 20-6-1949 when told that the accused were not prepared to pay more expressed that you would be satisfied if at least Rs.5000 was paid and on being told that the parties were not willing to pay anything more than the sum of Rs.1000 already paid, returned the sum of Rs.1000 received by you, to P.K. Sethuramaswami Goundar.
Charge II : That you when you were the Stationary Sub Magistrate, Poilachi, demanded and received illegal gratification of two sums of Rs.500 each from Sri Gopalaswami Goundar of Singarampalayam promising to convict the accused concerned in the case filed by him against Chinnaswami Gounder alias Subbiah Gounder and others for alleged trespass into his lands."
3. The enquiry before the Tribunal was very elaborate and after consideration of the evidence, the Tribunal found in regard to charge No. I that the main evidence of the prosecution witnesses could not be believed but went on to state "I feel no doubt that the offer of bribe proceeded only from P.W.1 (Sethuramaswami Goundar) that the alleged payment of Rs.1000 as bribe and alleged return of it are not true. It seems to me, however, that when P.W.1 approached the accused officer, the latter snatched the opportunity to demand high bribe as Chinnusami Goundar was in his estimation fabulously rich; but that no bribe was paid to him. The charge is proved only to the limited extent, viz., that the accused officer demanded the bribe of Rs.10000 and that no money was actually paid to him."
4. The second charge was also held not to be proved a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
