KUPPUSWAMI P S Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of our learned brother. Govdinda Menon, J. in W. P. No. 717 of 1952.

(2.) THE appellant was a motor vehicles inspector under the Government of Madras Disciplinary proceedings were taken against him, and the tribunal constituted under the Madras Civil Services Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal Rules, 1948, conducted the enquiry. Five charges were framed against him. The tribunal held that three of the charges so framed had not been proved. The tribunal further held the following two charges proved:

(3.) OF the several contentions which Mr. Venkatasubramania Ayyar, learned Counsel for the appellant petitioner, desired to put forward, he virtually confined the arguments before us to the consideration of ground No. 15 in the memorandum of appeal, which ran thus: The learned Judge ought to have held the Government had no power to remove the appellant from service on the ground of mere suspicion in view of the guarantees embodied in the rules of 1948. The punishment inflicted on the appellant was not removal from service as such although that was the real effect of the punishment. The punishment actually imposed upon the appellant was compulsory retirement from service. The difference between the two punishments, removal from service and compulsory retirement from service, was explained by the Supreme Court in Satischandra Anand v. Union of India 1953 S. C. R. 323, and also in Shyam Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and the Union of India One other feature, which could be but of academic interest in this case, was pointed out by the learned Advocate-General. Section 240 (3) of the Government of India Act, 1935, it should be remembered, singled out two punishments for the statutory guarantee provided in that sub-clause, dismissal and reduction in rank. Article 311 now gives a similar guarantee for dismissal, removal and reduction in rank. The learned Advocate-General referred to Section 277 (1) of the Government of India Act, 1935, which explained dismissal: Reference to dismissal from His Majesty's services includes reference to removal from His Majesty's service. He contended that the position after the Constitution came into force was substantially the same. Only removal from service was specifically mentioned in Article 311. That, however, does not alter the fact that compulsory retirement from service was a punishment not within the scope either of Section 240 of the Government of India Act or of Article 311 of the Constitution.