Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1961Ker1; 1961CriLJ63
Sankaran, C.J.1. The question of law raised in the first 5 references and in the next revision petition is practically the same and hence all of them were heard together. They are also disposed of by the present common order.2. Criminal Reference No. 21/57 is by the Session Judge at Alleppey and he has recommended under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the committal order which is the basis of Sessions Case No. 32/56 on the file of his Court may be quashed since it is an illegal order passed in violation of the mandatory provisions contained in Clause (4) of Section 207A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The ground of illegality is stated to be that the Magistrate who committed the accused to stand their trial in the Sessions Court, has passed the order of committal without examining all the witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet filed by the police as witnesses to the actual commission of the alleged offence.In Crl. Ref. No. 22/57 also a similar recommendation has ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1962Ker43
Madhavan Nair, J. 1. The appellant was a clerk in the Taluk Office, Meenachil, who was dismissed as per Ext. P-3 order of the 2nd respondent, the Board of Revenue, Kerala, on charges of falsification of accounts, tampering with the records and misappropriation of Government money while he was a clerk in the Jenmikaram Section of the Taluk Office. That order was, on appeal, affirmed hy Ext. P-4 order of the 1st respondent, the Government of Kerala. By O. P. No. 424 of 1958 he prayed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing Exts. P-3 and P-4 orders and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate him in service. But it was dismissed by Justice Sri M. S. Menon. This appeal is against that order. 2. The contention urged by the appellant is that the proceedings which culminated in Ext. P-3 order of his dismissal were conducted in a manner violative of all rules of natural justice and as such the impugned orders are unsustainable in law. 3. The admitted facts of the cas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1961Ker282; (1961)IILLJ562Ker
Ansari, C.J.1. These two appeals and O. P. No. 825 of 1959 arise from disputes between the Principal and the Management of Sri Kerala Varma College, Trichur. The Cochin Devaswom Board, which had been vested with authority under Section 62 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, is the appellant in both the appeals and is the respondent in the writ petition.The aforesaid section directs that the administration of incorporated and unincorporated DEvaswoms and Hindu Religious Institutions under the management of the Ruler of Cochin prior to July 1st, 1949, or under the Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1 of 1081, should vest in the Board; and the appellant, therefore, manages Sri Kerala Varma College, Trichur, which was started in 1947 and is being run with funds from one such institution.A. V. Akhileswara Iyyer, the respondent to the appeals before us, was on August 16th 1947, appointed as a Professor and the Head of the Department' of History and Economic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1961Ker260; 1961CriLJ484
Raghavan, J. 1. These cases raise an important and interesting question of law regarding the necessity for obtaining sanction of the State Government to prosecute either under Section 132 or under Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The petitioner in Crl.. B. P. No. 238 of 1957 was charged under Sections 409 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. He was the Head Accountant-cum-cashier in the Office of the Assistant Supply Officer, Ernakulam and he was entrusted with a sum of Rs. 1,525-8-6 on 16th February 1957, in his capacity as a public servant, for the purpose of disbursing that amount to one Padmanabha Prabhu, who supplied petrol to the Supply Department. He committed criminal breach of trust with respect to the said amount by dishonestly misappropriating the same or converting it to his own use and also committed falsification of accounts of the above Department by making false entries in the said accounts. On these allegations charges under Sections 409 and 477A of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1961)IILLJ486Ker
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, Sri T.N. Subramania Iyer, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to have the order of respondent 1, Ex.P. 1, dated 20 October 1960 quashed by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order. 2. The order Ex.P. 1 itself is to the effect that investigations conducted into allegations against the three officers mentioned therein, one of whom is the petitioner, have disclosed prima facie that the officers have committed the two irregularities stated therein. Ex.P. 1 also states that the allegations referred to therein, for which there is prima facie evidence are of a serious nature warranting disciplinary action and the Government consider that the case against the three officers mentioned therein should be proceeded with and enquired into under the Kerala Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1960 and the Government order accordingly. 3. Ex.P. 1 is also...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1963Ker92
C.A. Vaidialingam, J,1. In this writ petition Mr. T. N. Subramania Iyer, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges the proceedings taken by the State Government, and which ultimately resulted in the passing of the order, Ext. P-8, by the respondent on 20-6-1961. Under Ext. P-8, it will be seen that the State Government are of the view that, misbehaviour as against the petitioner, has been proved and that he is dismissed from service with effect from 13-2-1961, the date on which he was placed under suspension, pending enquiry into the charges framed as against him.2. The petitioner joined as a clerk in the Land Revenue Department in 1107 and he was occupying various positions after that period and ultimately in 1955, he was promoted and posted as Sub-Magistrate, Irinjalakuda. On 6-10-1956, the Bar Association, Irinjalakuda, passed a resolution alleging serious misconduct as against the petitioner and requesting for action being taken as against him. On a copy of the resolution bein...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1963Ker151; (1963)ILLJ359Ker
1. This is an appeal by the peti-tioner in O. P. No. 209 of 1959 against the (sic) missal of that petition. The petition was beard along with O. P. No. 205 of 1959. That petition was allowed.2. The appellant was a Sub Divisional Officer in the Forest Department. The petitioner in O. P. No. 205 of 1959 was a Divisional Officer in that Department. There was an inquiry as against both of them and a Range Officer under the Tiavancors Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1122.3. There were six articles of charge against the appellant. The Inquiry Coinmissioner (sic) him guilty under Articles 1 and 6 and not guilty as regards the other articles of charge. The judgment under appeal docs not endorse the conclusion as far as Article 6 is concerned.4. By a common order, Ext. P-7 dated 1-2-1958, the Government directed the dismissal of all the three officers. The appellant and the Divisional Officer appealed to the Governor. The Governor modified the punishment to one of removal from service in all t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1964CriLJ592
Govinda Menon, J.(1) This is an appeal filed by accused 1 and 2 In Sessions Case 23 of 1962 on the file of the Sessions Judge of Kottayam. The first accused has been convicted Under Section 302 I. P. C, for causing the death of Kesavan Nair, a police constable. He is also convicted of the offences under Sees, 353, 224 and 324 IPC The second accused is found guilty and convicted of the offence punishable Under Section 225 IPC(2) The first accused and three others were accused in C. C. 699/61 on the file of the Sub-Magistrate of Punalur. The accused had appeared in court and were enlarged on bail. Pws. 1 and 10 had stood surety far them executing surety bonds. As the accused did not appear in court, notice was issued to the sureties to show cause why their bail bonds should not be cancelled. On receipt of the notice they appeared in court and filed n application Ex. P-15 promising to assist the police to effect the arrest of the accused and have them produced iii court and wanted two wee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1964Ker227; (1963)IILLJ211Ker
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In this writ petition Mr. P. Subramonian Potti, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges the order Ext. P-5, passed by the State Government dated 3-5-1961. Under Ext. 5, the State Government has dismissed the petitioner from service, on the basis of certain disciplinary proceedings taken as against him.2. The legal contention that has been taken, apart from the contention taken on facts regarding the sustainability of the findings on the evidence, is as follows:On the dates when the petitioner is alleged to have taken part in political activities, the rules that were in force were the Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1950 promulgated by the Travancore-Cochin Government on 22-2-1950. Those rules not having been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, arc not 'law'. Only if they have been framed under Article 309, the question may have to be considered as to whether the restrictions imposed on Government servants by those rules are reasonable restri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1963Ker316; (1963)IILLJ290Ker
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J. 1. In this writ petition, Mr. M. K. Nambiar, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges as illegal and void, the order Ex. P-11, passed by the State Government on 8-3-1963 placing, under suspension, the petitioner, who was at the material time, the 1st Member of the Board of Revenue, in the State. The order shows that the petitioner has been placed under suspension under Rule 7 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, till the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner are completed. It is necessary to state the matters which are mentioned in the order, Ex. P-11, which will show, the circumstances under which the State Government decided to take action under Rule 7.2. It is mentioned that the Government have received several petitions containing serious allegations of official misconduct against the petitioner who is a member of the Indian Administrative Service and the First Member of the Board of Revenue and was also...
Tag this Judgment!