LexR. JEEVARATNAM versus TIIE STATE OF MADRAS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
R. JEEVARATNAM v. TIIE STATE OF MADRAS October 13, 1965 (K. SUBBA RAo, J. R. MUDHOLKAR AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.] Disciplinary Proceedings-Inquiry-Same counsel representing appel- lant as some others-No confi1Ct of interest-Whether reasonable oppor- tunity to defend given. Dismissal Order-With retrospective effect-Effect of. Disciplinary proceedings were started against the appellant, a Deputy Tahsildar, and three of his subordinates on charge of accepting illegal gratification. On May 20, 1949, he was placed under suspension and relieved of his duties. The Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal directed the consolidation and common hearing of the enquiries against the appellant and the other three civil serYants. Although the Tribunal refused an earlier application of the appellant for permission to engage counsel, at the hearing of tlie enquiry on being told that he could engage the same counsel who appeared for the other three civil servants, the appellant engaged that counsel and was represented by him throughout the eniqury. The Tribunal declined to grant a prayer of the appellant on June 13, 1949, to grant an adjournment of the hearing and the enquiry was held on June 13, 14 and 15. Upon the Tribunal recommending the appellant's dismissal and after fie bad been served with a show cau90 notice and had replied thereto, on October 17, 1950, the Government directed that he be dismissed from service with effect from May 20, 1949. The appellant then institnted a suit and sought a declaration that the order dated October 17, 1950 was illegal and void. The trial court dis- missed the suit and this decision was affirmed on appeal by the High, Court. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that in view of the refusal c of the appellant's prayer to engage counsel of his own choice and of his F prayer for adjournment on June 13, he had been denied a reasonable opportnnity to defend himself against the charges; and furthermore, that the order of dismissal dated October 17, 1950 having been passed with mrospectiv.e effect from the date of suspension was illegal and in- operative. HELD : (i) The appellant had been given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself against the charges. (206 DJ G There was no conflict of interests between the appellant and the other three civil servants; there was nothing to show that the counsel repre- senting the other three was unable to conduct the appellant's defence. properly. (206 CJ (ii) The order of dismissal as from October 17, 1950, was Talid and effective. (207 A] An order of dismissal with retrospective effect i~. ht substance, an order of dismissal as from the date of the order with the superadded direction that the order should operate as from an anterior date. Th<\ .• A B JEEVARATNAM v. STATE (Bachawat, J.) 205 two parts of the order are clearly severable, Assuming that the second part of the order is invalid, there is no reason why the first part of the order should not be given the fullest effect. [207 G-H; 208 A] Hemanta Kumar v. S. N. Mukherjee, (1953) 58 C.W.N. 1-referreu to. Abdul Hamid v. The District School Board, 24-Parganas (1957) 61 C.W.N. 880: Sudhir Ranjan Haldar v, State of W. Bengal A.LR. 1961 Cal. 626, 630 : disapproved. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 232 of 1964. Appeal from the Judgment and order dated the 23rd October, 1960 of the Madras High Court in Appeal No. 237 of 1958. c R. Thiagarajan and R. Ganapathy Iyer, for the appellant. D E F A. Ranganadham Chetty and A. V. Rangam, for the respon- dent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by . Bacbawat J. The appellant held the post of Deputy Tahsildar in the Revenue Department of the Government of Madras. Dis- ciplinary proceedings were started against him on twelve charges of acceptance of illegal gratification during his office as Special Loans Deputy Tahsildar, Cuddalore, South Arcot District. Dis- ciplinary proceedings were started against three of his subordinates also on similar charges. On May, 20, 1949, he was placed under suspension and relieved of his duties. The Disciplinary Proceed- ings Tribunal directed the consolidation and common hearing of the enquiries against the appellant and the other three civil ser- vants. The appellant asked for permission to engage a counsel at the enquiry. By an order dated May 31, 1949, the Tribunal refused to give the permission. The enquiry was held on June 13, 14 a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.