LexS. GOVINDA MENON versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
S. GOVINDA MENON
v.
THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
February 2, 1967
(K. N. WANCHOO AND V. llAMAsWAMI, JJ.]
All India Services (Discipline and Appeal Rules), 1955-rr 4(1) 5(2)
7(1).
.
'
•
Madras Ilindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act XIX of 1951,
SS. 20, 29, 80, 81, 99, 100(2)(nr).
Government servant acting in capacity of 'Corporation sole'-Allega-
tions of misconduct in discharge of rluries-Whetlrer disciplinary proceed-
1nRs can be taken against liifn under r. 4( 1 )--Or wlzethi!r his decisions can
only be questioned in appeal or revisiori-Wl~!tlier suspension under r.
7(1) can be ordered only after framing of charges under r. 5(2)-Whether
leases for over five years requir11d to be b_y pllblic auction-Whether Com.
missio.,er can himself initiate proposals of leases.
While the appellant, who was a member of tho Indian Administrath-e
Service and the First Member of the Board of Revenue, Kerala State, was
holding the post of Commissioner of Hindu Religious ond Charitable En-
dowments, certain complaints were made against him relating to the grant
of cenain leases. The State Government instituted disciplinary proceedings
a~inst him and placed him under 'uspension under Rule 7 of the All
India Services (Discipline and Appea1') Rules, 1955.
An Enquiry Officer
\\'as thereafter appointed under Ruic 5 to investigate the charges.
The
appellant filed a petition for the grant of a writ of certiorari to quash the
proceedings initialed against him and for a writ of n1andamus calling upon
the Stale Government lo pennit him lo function as the First Member of
the Board of Revenue.
In the meantime, the Enquiry Officer having sul>-
mitted a report to the Union Government finding the appellant guilty of
some of the charges. a ~how cau"e notice was issued to him. At this stage
the appellant applied for and obtained an amendment of his writ petition
and by the amended petition sought a writ of prohibition re.straining the
Union Government from proceeding further u00n and for quashing the
show cause notice. The writ pe1ition was dismissed by the High Court.
In <!,ppeal to this Court, it wac; cont-ended. inter alia for the appellant
(I) that in view of s. 80 of ~adras Act XIX of 1951
which provides
that the Commissioner shall be a Corporation sole, a person acting in
the caoacitv of a Commissioner is not a Government servant and there
"·as
1herefore
no jurisdiction to take disciplinary
proceedings
against
him under Rule 4( I); (ii) that the Commissioner wa.• exercising a quasi-
judiciat function in sanctioning teases under the Act which were the subject-
maller of the complaint< against him : his orders could therefore onlv he
questioned in appeal as provided under s. 29(4) of the Act or examined
by the Government in revisiott under s. 99 and not by the executive Gov-
ernment through disciplinary proceedin~s; (iii) that the main charge against
the appellant was not sustainahle : there wao;; nothing improper in hi~
having sanctioned leases for over five_ years without auction or in his havin{!
initialed proposals for leases in favour of specified individuals; (iv) that
the proceedings under Ruic 4(1) "''ere invalid as there was n() form~l order
A
a
c
D
E
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
'
GOVINDA MENON I'. UNION (Ramaswami, J.)
567
instituting these proceedings; and (v) that the appellant could not be sus-
pended until after charges had been framed against him.
HELD : No case had been made out for the grant of a writ of prohi-
bition under Art. 226.
The King v. North (1927] I K.B. 491; Regina v. Comptroller.General
of Patents and Designs [1953] 2 W.L.R. 760, 765; Parisienne Basket Shoes
proprietary Ltd. v. Wl\vte 59 C.L.R. 369, referred to.
(i) Even if the appellant was not subject to the administrative control
of the Government when be was functioning as Commissioner, his act or
omission as Commissioner could form the subject-matter of diseiplinary
proceedings under Rule 4(1) provided the act or omission would reflect
upon his reputation for integrity or devotion to duty as a n1ember of the
Service. [574 BJ
Pearce v. Foster l 7 Q.B.D. 536, 542; referred to.
There was no force in the contention that the Commissioner has a
separate legal personaJity as corporation sole and is therefore exempt from
disciplinary proceedings. [575 F]
(ii) The allegations against the appellant were to the effect that in
exercising his powers as Commissioner, he acted in abuse of his powExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.