The appellant asked for permission to engage a companynsel at the enquiry.
Counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the refusal of the appeals prayer for engaging a companynsel of his own choice and his prayer for adjournment of the hearing on June 13, 1949, the appellant had been denied a reasonable opportunity to defend himself against the charges.
Appeal from the Judgment and order dated the 23rd October, 1960 of the Madras High Court in Appeal No.
There was numberconflict of interests between him and the other three civil servants.
The appellant number appeals to this Court by special leave.
We are number inclined to accept this submission.
On June 13, the appellant prayed for an adjournment.
The trial Court dismissed the suit, and, this decree was affirmed on appeal by the High Court of Madras.
Kalyanasundaram as his companynsel.
237 of 1958.
The Tribunal declined to grant the adjournment and told the appellant that he was at liberty to engage Sri.
On May, 20, 1949, he was placed under suspension and relieved of his duties.
The enquiry was held on June 13, 14 and 15.
The appellant instituted the suit asking for a declaration that the order dated October 17, 1950 dismissing him from service is illegal and void.
At the hearing, the other three civil servants were represented by companynsel, Sri.
On June 30, the Tribunal submitted a report stating that the charges against the appellant were proved and recommending his dismissal.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Kalyanasundaram.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat J. The appellant held the post of Deputy Tahsildar in the Revenue Department of the Government of Madras.
On October 17, 1950, the Government directed that he be dismissed from service with effect from May 20, 1949.
Kalyanasundaram, and was represented by him throughout the enquiry.
The Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal directed the companysolidation and companymon hearing of the enquiries against the appellant and the other three civil servants.
On November 12, 1949, he submitted his written representation.
By an order dated May 31, 1949, the Tribunal refused to give the permission.
The appellant thereupon availed himself of the services of Sri.
On September 16, the Government issued a numberice to him asking him to show cause why he should number be dismissed from service.
232 of 1964.
Ranganadham Chetty and A. V. Rangam, for the respondent.
Thiagarajan and R. Ganapathy Iyer, for the appellant.
Counsel representing the other three civil servants was allowed by the Tribunal also to represent him.
Dis ciplinary proceedings were started against him on twelve charges of acceptance of illegal gratification during his office as Special Loans Deputy Tahsildar, Cuddalore, South Ascot District.
Disciplinary proceedings were started against three of his subordinates also on similar charges.
