Constitutional Law-II [LLB204]

PSDA
CASE: S. Govinda Menon v. Union of India AIR
1967 SC 1274

BY SIDDHI MISHRA
BBA LLB [B]
08751103520
 FACTS
• The accused in this case was member of the Indian Administrative Service
and the First Member of the Board of Revenue in the state and was also
formerly Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments.
 He petitioner had in several cases initiated the proposals for leases himself
which should have been made by the trustee and acted in judgment on
them by sanctioning the leases.
 He had fixed the premium for lease, the rental and the timber value
arbitrarily disregarding whether they were beneficial to the institutions as
he was required to do under the Act and thereby caused wrongful gain to
the lessees and wrongful loss to the Devaswoms.
• In addition to this the petitioner-initiated proposals for the leases and
sanctioned them all by himself, but and took further action for putting the
lessees in possession of the lands
• the petitioner had then filled for writ of prohibition stating
that in view of s. 80 of Madras Act XIX of 1951 which
provides that the Commissioner shall be a Corporation
sole, a person acting in the capacity of a Commissioner
is not a Government servant and there was therefore
no jurisdiction to take disciplinary proceedings against
him under Rule 4(1).
• Hence the government of Kerala had no authority of
investigating the case against S.Govinda Menon.
 Issue raised
• Whether the government of Kerala had jurisdiction to initiate
disciplinary proceedings against S. Govinda Menon.

• Whether the appeal of writ petition was valid as the appellant

contended that the government had no jurisdiction as his act
itself was a quasi -judicial act.

• Whether the appellant was serving under the government.

 JUDGMENT
• For a question whether the government had jurisdiction
was answered by court as follows Rule 4(1)(b) All India
Services (Discipline and Appeal Rules) merely says that
the appropriate Government competent to institute
disciplinary proceedings against a member of the
Service would be the Government under whom such
member was serving at the time of the commission of
such act or omission.
• Validation of quashing was justified as follows After
hearing the arguments advanced on both sides, court
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.
• As it was proved that that the government Kerala had the full
authority to enquire the action of S. Govinda Menon
• The court had held a clear distinction must be maintained
between want of jurisdiction and the manner in which it is
exercised. If there is want of jurisdiction then the matter is
Coram non Judice and a writ of prohibition will lie to the
court or inferior tribunal forbidding it to continue,
proceedings therein in excess of its jurisdiction.