Mitter, J. - (1.) These six appeals arise out of certificates granted by the High Court of Madras arising out of two Writ Petitions and a petition under Ss. 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed in that court by P. Sirajuddin, the appellant in the first set of appeals. It is not necessary to give an outline of these petitions as the salient features thereof appear sufficiently from the judgment of the High Court and the substance thereof is dealt with hereafter.
(2.) The facts are as follows. The appellant was the Chief Engineer. Highways and Rural Works, Madras having risen from the status of a District Board Engineer in which capacity he joined service in the year l935. He attained the age of 55 years on March 14, 1964 on which date he was asked to hand over charge of his office to one Shiv Sankar Mudaliar, Superintending Engineer, Madras. He expected to be retained in service up to the eve of 58 a privilege said to be normally accorded to person physically and otherwise fit for public service. It appears that on March 1, 1964 a copy of a petition concerning him and dated February 28, 1964 addressed to the Minister Public Works by one Rangaswami Nadar was received by the Chief Minister of the State. It is said that apart therefrom allegations about want of rectitude of the appellant had already reached the Government. The Chief Minister asked the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to make confidential enquiries. On March l0, 1964 Government received a note from the said officer which cast serious aspersions on the appellant's reputation and mentioned quite a few instances of his lack of probity. The endorsement of the Chief Minister on the note read: "Secretary, P. W. D. I had this (petition already mentioned) from the Director of Vigilance. This may be immediately looked into. I have asked the Director to pursue the investigation further." Thereupon the Chief Secretary orally ordered a full-fledged enquiry in the matter and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption one G. K. Ranganathan, was asked to make a personal enquiry and report under the supervision of R. N. Krishnaswamy. The Director of Vigilance registered an enquiry numbering 8/HD/64 on 15th April, 1964. That the enquiry was taken up with great keenness appears from a note of Ranganathan to the effect that he would require the assistance of two Inspectors to assist him. There can be no doubt that the enquiry- launched by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department was a very thorough and searching one. A very large number of persons were examined by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption officers including 18 public servants who spoke to matters touching the allegations against the appellant. Statements in writing signed by the makers were taken from no less than nine public servants regarding the above and two of them, namely, S. Sivasubrahmanyam and S. Chidambararn were given certificates assuring them immunity from prosecution for the part played by them in rendering aid to the appellant in the commission of his malpractices. These two persons occupied the position of an Assistant Engineer and a Junior Engineer and were subordinates of the appellant. On June 27, 1964 a first information report was lodged in the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Madras and the case recorded as 3/AC/64. The offences to be investigated into were under Ss. 161 and 165 of the Indian Penal Code and S. 5 (1) (a) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The complaint was made by Ranganathan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department to the Additional Superintendent of Police in the same department. It is pertinent to note that the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption which had been set up under a Government order dated 8th April l964 was declared to be a 'police station' under clause (s) of subsection (1) of section 4 of the Code of Criminal., Procedure, by a notification dated May 25, '1964 and by another notification of the same date the Governor of Madras conferred upon the Director and the Superintendents of Police of the said Directorate all the ordinary powers of a Magistrate of the First Class under section 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act within the limits of the whole of the State of Madras except the Presidency Town. The complaint by Ranganathan to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, gave details of various malpractices with which the appellant was charged. He was inter alia said to have obtained various articles of furniture with the help of Sivasubrahmanyam and Chidambaram mentioned above by paying only a small fraction of the cost and asking them to adjust the balance by manipulations of the muster rolls claims. He was also said to have got his residence whitewashed in similar manner. It was also alleged against him that he had constructed a bungalow by diverting building materials allotted for the construction of the Cauveri bridge at Tiruchirapalli. The complaint wound up with a paragraph to the effect that a criminal case would be registered against him as a regular investigation alone would facilitate the collection of additional evidence by way of recovery of valuable things which he had obtained from his subordinates by various illegal means and in addition more incriminating evidence was likely to be forthcoming during the investigation. Sanction to prosecute the appellant was obtained on September 27, 1964 and a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court of the Special Judge, Madras on October 5, 1964 numbered as C. C. No. 10 of 1964. No less than 47 witnesses had been examined during the investigation following the first information report and at least nine of them had been previously examined at what was termed as a "preliminary or detailed enquiry."
(3.) No less than 19 malpractices were alleged against him in different paragraphs of the charge sheet and the appellant was charged with having obtained for himself or for members; of his family various valuable things from his subordinates by corrupt and illegal means and by abusing his posision as a public servant. The charges were for offences already mentioned.;