P. JOSEPH JOHN versus THE STATE OF TRAVANCORE-COCHIN.

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 1011 · Decided: 25-11-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, BIJAN KUMAR MUKHERJEA, SUDHI RANJAN DAS, VIVIAN BOSE, NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI, B. JAGANNADHADAS, T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

f 
r , 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1011 
to stand as a candidate for election he shall not either 
be employed as a paid legal practitioner on behalf of 
the municipality or act as a legal practitioner against 
the Municipality. 
There is no fundamental right in 
any person to stand as a candidate for election to the 
Municipality. 
The only 
fundamental 
right which is 
guaranteed is 
that of practising 
any 
profession 
or 
carrying on any occupation, 
trade 
or business. There 
is no violation of the latter right in prescribing the 
disqualification of the type enacted in section 16(1) (ix) 
of the Act. If he wants to stand as a candidate 
for 
election it is but proper that he should divest himself 
of his paid brief on behalf of the 
Municipality or the 
brief against the Municipality in which event there will 
be certainly no bar to his candidature. 
Even if it be 
taken as a restriction on his right to practice his pro-
fession of law, such restriction would be a reasonable 
one and well within the ambit of artl.Cle 19 clause 5. 
Such restriction would be a reasonable one 
to impose 
in the interests of the general public for the preserva-
tion of purity in public life. 
We therefore see no sub-
stance in this contention of the appellant also. 
The appeal accordingly fails 
and stands dismissed 
with costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
P. ·JOSEPH JOHN 
ti. 
THE STATE OF TRAVANCORE-COCHIN. 
[MEHAR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J., MuKHERJEA, 
S. R. DAs, VIVIAN BosE, BHAGWATI, JAGANNADHADAS 
and VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.] 
Constitution of India, Arts. 166, 311, 320-0pportunity to show 
cause-Consultation with Public Services · Commission-E:ctent of-
Travancore Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, (Act XI of 1132)-"'0ur 
Government"-Meaning of-Covenant of United Staie of Travancore-
Cochin-Article 20-Application of. 
.1954 
Sakhawat Ali 
v. 
The State of Orissa· 
Bhagwati]. 
1954 
Nov1m#r25 
1954 
P. Jo,.ph John 
v. 
The State of 
T ravan&ore-Cochi11 
1012 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
An enquiry under the provisions of the Travap.core Public Ser-
vant• (Inquiries) Act, (Act XI of 1132) was held against the peti-
tioner in pursuance of a resolution passed by the Council of Minis-
ters. The petitioner took part in the proceedings, denied the charges 
and raised legal objection to the competence of the Enquiry Com-
mission to hold the enquiry. Some of the charges were held proved. 
The petitioner was asked by the Chief Secretary to show cause why 
he should not be removed from service. The petitioner's request for 
extension of time to show cause was granted twice but refused 
a 
third time. On his failure to avail himself of the opportunity to 
sho\.v cause against the action proposed to be taken against him, the 
report of the Enquiry Commissioner was submitted to the 
Public 
Services Commission and the latter approved of the action proposed 
to be taken against the petitioner. 
The proceedings relating to the 
enquiry were submitted to the 
Rajpramukh and thereupon an order 
in proper form for the removal of the petitioner from service was 
made by the Rajpramukh and authenticated by the Chief Secretary 
to Government. 
Held, (i) that under the provisions of Art. 311 of the Consti-
tution a civil servant is entitled to have a reasonable opportunity to 
defend himself and show cause, both at the ti1ne of enquiry into the 
charges brought against him and at the stage when definite conclu-
sions have been come to on the charges and the actual punishn1ent to 
follow is provisionally determined upon. 
The position cannot be 
characterised as anomalous if the statute conten1plates a reasonable 
opportunity at more than one stage. 
In the present case the petitioner had reasonable opportunity to 
enter upon his defence at both the stages. 
He fully availed himself 
of the first opportunity, but refused to avail himself of the second 
opportunity which was offered to him. All the rules of natural justice 
were observed in the case. 
(ii) The provisions of Art. 166(1) and (2) are directory, not 
mandatory; and, in order to determine whether there has been co1n-
pliance with the said provisions, all that is necessary to see is that 
the requirements of the sub-sections are met in substance. 
(iii) After the integration of the two States of Travancore and 
Cochin, the expression "Our Government" means "The Coui:cil of 
Ministers" under the new set up of democratic 
Government in the 
United State. 
The Rajpramukh as the head of the State is merel

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.