TMI Blog1966 (3) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee additional charges against the respondent on the 31st December, 1954. All these charges were in respect of acts of corruption alleged to have been committed by the respondent. 2. After the said two sets of charges were communicated to the respondent, the Tribunal held an enquiry. At this enquiry, 18 witnesses were examined for the appellant and 83 Exhibits were filed in support of the charges. As a result of the enquiry, the Tribunal found that out of the five charges, the first and the last charges were not proved, although there was some suspicion of guilt in respect of a gold wrist watch chain mentioned in charge No. 1. The Tribunal also found that the remaining three charges had been proved against the respondent. Having recorded these findings, the Tribunal recommended that the respondent should be compulsorily retired from service. 3. On receipt of the report made by the Tribunal (Item No. 7), the appellant provisionally accepted its findings and came to the conclusion that the respondent should be compulsorily retired from service. Accordingly, a notice dated 13th June 1956 (Item No. 8) was served on the respondent. By this notice, the respondent was told that the G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d they were ordered to be investigated. The order by which the respondent was compulsorily retired from service by the appellant sets out in brief the history of the proceedings taken against the respondent, the nature of the advice received by the appellant from the Public Service Commission and concludes in paragraph 4 that the Government have carefully considered the explanation submitted by the accused officer in consultation with the Madras Public Service Commission. This paragraph then summarises the advice given by the Madras Public Service Commission. The last two sentences in this paragraph are relevant. The Commission, says the said paragraph, has therefore agreed that in the present case, it is enough to impose the penalty of compulsory retirement from service on the delinquent officer. The Government agree with the Madras Public Service Commission. Paragraph 5 refers to the further complaints received against the respondent and directs that the same should be investigated. The operative portion of this paragraph says that the Government have decided that the accused officer should be retired compulsorily on the basis of the charges already proved before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with. It is also common ground that in its report, the Tribunal has examined the evidence, both oral and documentary, and has made clear findings in respect of the five charges framed against the respondent. According to the Tribunal, the first and the last charges were not proved, whereas the remaining three had been proved. This position is not in dispute. The High Court has taken the view that when the Public Service Commission was consulted, it expressed its concurrence with the punishment which the appellant proposed to impose upon the respondent on the ground that even if there was nothing more than a strong suspicion of corrupt practices against the respondent, his compulsory retirement would be justified. It must be conceded that the words used by the Public Service Commission in its communication to the Government are somewhat ambiguous. In the first part of the communication, the Commission has expressed its general agreement with the findings of the Tribunal. If that is read by itself, it would show that the Commission accepted the finding of the Tribunal that the respondent was guilty of three charges. Having made this observations, however, the Commission has further r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght in taking the view that compulsory retirement of the respondent would be enough penalty in the present case. 12. This construction of the last portion of paragraph 4 is clearly supported by the definite order made in paragraph 5 where the appellant has expressly stated that the Government have decided that the officer should be retired compulsorily on the basis of the charges already proved before the Tribunal. It is impossible to see how this finding, which is clear and categorical, can be ignored in considering the question as to whether the appellant acted against the respondent merely on suspicion. The whole order is elaborately drawn; it sets out the history of the proceedings; the findings of the Tribunal, the advice of the Madras Public Service Commission, and the conclusion of the appellant. The conclusion of the appellant is clear; the appellant took the view that three charges had been proved before the Tribunal, and it is on proof of those charges that the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on the respondent. 13. When the matter reached the Governor in the form of an appeal presented before him by the respondent, we find that the Governor rejected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grees with the findings of the Tribunal which are against the delinquent officer, we do not think as a matter of law, it could be said that the State Government cannot impose the penalty against the delinquent officer in accordance with the findings of the Tribunal unless it gives reasons to show why the said findings were accepted by it. The proceedings are, no. doubt, quasi-judicial; but having regard to the manner in which these enquiries are conducted, we do not think an obligation can be imposed on the State Government to record reasons in every case. 16. We may incidentally point out that in G. O. No. 902, Public (Services), dated the 28th May, 1938, to which the Public Service Commission has referred in its communication addressed to the appellant it appears to be assumed that a public servant can be punished even without proof of any corrupt practice if the cumulative evidence that he was suspected in a number of instances to be corrupt or is generally believed to be a corrupt officer, is available against him. In our opinion, the view thus expressed by the Government Order is open to serious objection. It may be that in disciplinary proceedings taken against public serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
