JAGANMOHAN REDDY,J. - (1.)This is an application for the issue of a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ prohibiting the Estates Manager Kakinada from proceeding with the enquiry against the petitioner before him. The petitioner is the village munsiff of Mallavaram, also known as Polekurru Malleswaram, and has been discharging his functions in that capacity since 1936. The estate in which the village is situate was taken over by the Government in 1949. On a compliant against the petitioner regarding temporary misappropriation of certain land revenue collections, the Manager and Assistant Manager of the estate made enquiries against him and after looking into the accounts the Assistant Manager in his reference B. 1380/55 dated 3-11-1955 framed certain charges, against the petitioner alleging temporary misappropriation of the land revenue amounts and called on him to submit his explanation. The petitioner states that he asked for time to peruse the accounts, but the Manager of the estate in his Reference A-2-5690 55 dated 17-1-1956 issued proceedings stating that if he did not offer any explanation in his office and in his presence within three days, action will be taken for disobedience of official orders and that his conduct, will be reported to the District Collector. The petitioner thereupon submitted his explanation. The manager is said to have sent up two reports Ref. No. A-2-5690/55 d/19-7-55 and A-2-5690/55 dated 1-11-1955 alleging the petitioner to have been guilty of temporary misappropriation of land revenue collections and requested the matter to be referred for police investigation. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada thereafter acted upon the reports of the Manager and sent a complaint against the applicant by his letter dated 8-3-1956. The police have registered the offence as Crime No. 33/56, Corringa Police station and arrested him. It may be stated that the Manager of the Estates in his proceedings dated 7-4-1956 passed orders suspending the petitioner till the disposal of the criminal case. The petitioner moved for bail before the same Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kakinada, who had sent a report and bail was granted subject to certain conditions, namely that the petitioner was not to enter Mallawaram village till the police investigation was completed and also till the disposal of the prosecution evidence if a charge sheet were to be filed against him. The petitioner thereafter applied to the Additional Session Judge, Visakhapatnam, for cancellation of the condition imposed in the bail order which the said Sessions Judge ordered observing that the Revenue Divisional Officer was himself the complainant in the case and he ought not to have dealt with the bail application. This order was made on 25-5-1956 and since then no investigation by the police has taken place and they did not even record his statement.
(2.)The petitioner in his affidavit alleges that due to the ill-will of the proprietor of the village Shri Akasapu Sanyasi who was at logger-heads with the ryots of the village and who believed that the petitioner was siding the ryots, the proceedings were taken against him on the allegation that he had misappropriated the land revenue collections. He also alleges that because of this the Estates Manager has got prejudiced against him. These allegations are, however, denied.
(3.)Learned advocate for the petitioner, Shri Adivi Ramarao, challenges the legality of the suspension order on the ground (a) that the Estates Manager is not entitled in law to suspend the petitioner or to enquire into the matter under any of the provisions of the Madras Hereditary Village Officers Act III of 1895 ; (b) that as he is both the complainant in the criminal case and also the enquiring officer, it is against the principles of natural justice that he should make the enquiry ; and (c) that the suspension till the disposal of the criminal case, which might never be filed, amounts to harassment.