There remains clause (Ga) of paragraph 3 in which it is stated that, at that time also, on account of corruption in the Municipality alone, late Dharmeswar Sarma, the then Head Clerk of his time, . had to commit suicide. Some of the ingredients of this clause have been found by the High Court to be incorrect. The facts found show that, while respondent No. 1 was Chairman, he issued an order to the effect that the salaries of sweepers were to be paid by the Head Clerk instead of the Accountant who was to hand over the money for that purpose of the Head Clerk Respondent No. 1 resigned the Chairmanship in November, 1964 and his resignation was accepted on 21st November, 1964. It was subsequently in the month of December, 1964 that the salary of the sweepers was not paid by the Head Clerk, Dharmeswar Sarma, who had received the money for this purpose. Under the orders of respondent No. 1, the payments had to be made by the Head Clerk in the presence of the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman or some other member nominated for the purpose by the Chairman. The ViceChairman held Dharmeswar Sarma responsible for the money when he found that the sweepers had not been paid and, thereupon, directed Dharmeswar Sarma to make good the shortage and pay up all the sweepers by 1 p.m. on 10th December, 1964 positively, failing which legal action would be taken against him. This order was not carried out and, instead, on 10th December, 1964, Dharmeswar Sarma committed suicide. These facts, no doubt, indicate that the statements made in clause (Ga) of paragraph 3 are not strictly correct. The main allegation that Dharmeswar Sarma, the Head Clerk, committed. suicide and that it was the result of corruption which was going on in the Municipality are borne out by the facts found. The expression used "at that time" in this clause, if interpreted literally, would mean that the suicide was committed while respondent No. 1 was himself the Chairman which is not true inasmuch as he had resigned earlier. It is, however, to be noted that the opportunity for Dharmeswar Sarma to misappropriate the money occurred only because of an order which had been passed earlier by respondent No. 1 while he was Chairman of the Municipality. In these circumstances, it has to be held that the allegation made in this clause is also substantially eorrect. The allegation was intended to convey that there was corruption in the Municipality at the time when respondent No. 1 was the Chairman and that it was so has been found to be true. There was no suggestion in this clause that respondent No. 1 himself was corrupt and that the suicide was the result of his personal corruption. Thus, this part of the
