The total area companyered by all the leases companyes to over 50,000 acres.
In particular you attempted to influence the Collector of Kozhikode, the statutory autho rity for the sanctioning of leases of private forests under the M. P. P. F. Act by causing your Personal Assistant to write to the Personal Assistant to the Collector thereby bringing the weight of your Official position as his official superior in your capacity as 1st Member, Board of Revenue to bear upon him and influence the Collector in the performance of his statutory duty.
The prayer in this amended petition was for the issue of a writ of prohibition restraining the first respondent Union of India from proceeding further in pursuance of the Show Cause Notice and also for quashing the same.
2, State of Kerala, to allow him to function as the.
1, the second part of charge No.
9 companycerns the refusal by the appellant to attend a companyference companyvened by the Chief Secretary to companysider certain important matters companynected with the national emergency.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated January 5, 1966 of the Kerala High Court in Original Petition No.1 of 1964.
He was the First.
Charges 1 to 4 and 9 read as follows That you, Shri S. Govinda Menon, I.A.S., while employed in the Government.
That you had fixed the premium for lease, the rental and the timber value arbitrarily disregarding whether they were beneficial to the institutions as you were required to do under the Act and you there by caused wrongful gain to the lessees and wrongful loss to the Devaswoms.
Member of the Board of Revenue, Kerala State and was holding the post of Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments.
3 and charge No.
The application for amendment was allowed by the High Court.
As numberapplication for stay was made and as numberorder of stay Was passed by the High Court Sri T. N. S. Raghavan proceeded with the inquiry and submitted his report to the Union Government finding the appellant guilty of charges 1 to 4 and 9.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The main companytention of the appellant was that the proceedings initiated against him were entirely without jurisdiction as numberdisciplinary proceedings companyld be taken against him for acts and omissions with regard to his work as Commissioner under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 Madras Act XIX of 1951 , hereinafter called the Act and that the orders made by him being of quasi judicial character can be impugned only in appropriate proceedings taken under that Act.
The appellant thereafter filed an application before the High Court for amendment of the writ petition.
respondent No.
It is necessary at this stage to set out the charges leveled against the appellant.
Service as member, Board of Revenue and Commissioner, H. C. E. Administration Department from 1 2 1957 to 19 10 1962 issued sanctions granting leases of extensive and valuable forest lands belonging to the Devaswoms under your companytrol as Commissioner such as 1 Pulpally Devaswom, Kallaikulangara Emoor Bhagavathi Temple, Nadivilla Vallathu Devaswom, 4 Kottiyor Devaswom, 5 Mundayanparamba Devaswom etc.,
Sarjoo Prasad, N. N. Venkitachalam, A. G., Pudissery and R. K. Pillai, for respondent No.
N. Bindra and R. H. Dhebar, for respondent No.
That you number only initiated proposals for the leases and sanctioned them yourself, but also took further action for putting the lessees in possession of the lands and to fell the trees thereon for which you had numberauthority under the Act and the Rules.
A companyy of the charges together with a statement of certain allegations was served on the appellant who thereafter filed a written statement of defence.
On the basis of certain petitions companytaining allegations of misconduct against the appellant in the discharge of his duties as Commissioner the Kerala Government instituted certain preliminary enquiries and thereafter started disciplinary proceedings against the appellant and also placed him under suspension under rule 7 of the All India Services Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1955, hereinafter called the Rules.
Charges 1 to 4 relate mainly to the companyduct of the appellant in sanctioning 30 leases regarding the private forest lands of 5 Devaswoms and charge No.
The judgment begins with the 1 1963 K.L.T. 1162.
The appellant, Sri S. Govinda Menon is a member of the Indian Administrative Service.
Velu Pillai, J. held that the Union Government had therefore numberjurisdiction to proceed with the inquiry on the first part of charge 1, charge 2, the first part of charge 3 and charge 4, but the Union Government had jurisdiction to proceed with the inquiry with regard to the second part of charge No.
The Kerala High Court had also occasion to companyment on the companyduct of the officer in their judgment in O.P. 2306/62 delivered on 12th February 1963.
The union of India, after companysideration of the report, issued a Show Cause Notice Ex.
The appellant appeared in person.
First Member of the Board of Revenue.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought, by certificate, against the judgment of the High Court of Kerala dated January 5, 1966 dismissing Original Petition No.1 of 1964 filed by the appellant.
1366 of 1966.
In view of this difference of opinion the matter was placed before Govinda Menon, J. who agreed with the view taken by Mathew, J. and in the result the writ petition of the appellant was dismissed.
After hearing the arguments advanced on both sides, Mathew, J. rejected the objections raised by the appellant regarding want of jurisdiction and held that the, respondents had power to proceed with the inquiry into the charges.
Accordingly Sri T. N. S. Raghavan a retired I.C.S. Officer was appointed to hold the inquiry.
The appellant then filed the present writ petition before the High Court of Kerala praying for grant of a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings initiated against, him and for a writ of mandwmus calling upon.
S. Velu Pillai, J. on the other hand, took the view that quasi judicial decisions became final and companyclusive if they were number set aside or modified in the manner prescribed by the statute and if the decisions are number so challenged, their companyrectness or legality must be taken to be companyclusive, and such quasi judicial decisions cannot form the subject matter of charges in disciplinary proceedings against the appellant.
In 17 of the leases relating to the first charge the period of the lease is 36 years.
In one case the period is 96 years and in the rest of the leases the period of lease is 99 years.
