9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of disciplinary proceedings against the appellant. 2. Validity of the charges against the appellant. 3. Validity of the disciplinary proceedings initiation. 4. Validity of the suspension order. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of Disciplinary Proceedings Against the Appellant: The appellant argued that the Government had no jurisdiction to take disciplinary proceedings against him for acts and omissions with regard to his work as Commissioner under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. The appellant contended that as the Commissioner is a corporation sole, he is not a servant of the Government and hence not subject to its disciplinary control. The court held that Rule 4(1) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, does not impose any limitation or qualification as to the nature of the act or omission in respect of which disciplinary proceedings can be instituted. The court concluded that the Government could take disciplinary proceedings against the appellant for acts or omissions that reflect upon his reputation for integrity, good faith, or devotion to duty as a member of the Service, even if those acts were committed in his capacity as Commissioner. 2. Validity of the Charges Against the Appellant: The charges against the appellant included misconduct in sanctioning leases of extensive and valuable forest lands belonging to Devaswoms, fixing the premium for lease arbitrarily, initiating proposals for leases, and sanctioning leases to relations and friends. The court examined whether the Commissioner was exercising quasi-judicial functions in sanctioning the leases and whether his orders could be questioned through disciplinary proceedings. The court assumed that the Commissioner was performing quasi-judicial functions but held that the Government was entitled to institute disciplinary proceedings if there was prima facie material showing recklessness or misconduct on the part of the appellant in the discharge of his official duty. The court concluded that the charges against the appellant were valid and that the Government could proceed with the inquiry. 3. Validity of the Disciplinary Proceedings Initiation: The appellant contended that there was no formal order of the Government for instituting disciplinary proceedings. The court referred to the order of the Government, Ex.P-1, which indicated that disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the appellant. The court held that there was no formal order necessary to initiate disciplinary proceedings under Rule 4(1) of the Rules and that the order of the State Government under Ex. P-1 must be deemed to be an order under Rule 4(1) of the Rules initiating disciplinary proceedings. 4. Validity of the Suspension Order: The appellant argued that the order of suspension dated March 8, 1963, was not in compliance with Rule 7 of the Rules, which states that the Government may place a member of the Service under suspension "having regard to the nature of the charge/charges and the circumstances in any case." The appellant contended that no order of suspension could be passed before the charges were framed under Rule 5(2). The court held that the word "charges" in Rule 7(1) should be given a wider meaning as denoting the accusations or imputations against the member of the Service. The court concluded that the order of suspension was valid and in compliance with Rule 7 of the Rules. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant had made out no case for the grant of a writ of prohibition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The majority judgment of the High Court of Kerala was upheld, and no order as to costs was made.
|
