GOVERNMENT OF AP. & ANR. versus N. RAMANAIAH

Citation: [2009] 9 S.C.R. 754 · Decided: 14-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2009) 9 S.C.R. 754 
GOVERNMENT OF AP. & ANR. 
v. 
N. RAMANAIAH 
(Civil Appeal No.2023 of 2006) 
MAY 14, 2009 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND a. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
c 
Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control 
and Appeal) Rules, 1991: 
rr.9(x), 14(2), 32 and 38 - Dismissal of employee by ,. 
Government instead of appointing authority -:- Propriety of -
Remedy - Held: The Rules clearly empowered not only the 
D appointing authority but also the Government to impose 
appropriate punishment upon the delinquent for pro,ven 
charge of misconduct - A right of appeal is not an inherent 
right, but subject to relevant rules - When order under r.38 is 
passed by Government itself in the name of Governor, there 
would be no right of appeal - Remedy of review under r. 38 
was available, which was not availed of by delinquent -
Judgment of High Court interfering with order of dismissal 
passed by Government set aside. 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Articles 311(1) and 311(2) - Government servant -
Opportunity of hearing -
Dismissal order passed by 
Governmen( itself instead of appointing authority - Held: 
There is nothing in the Constitution which debars the 
Government from exercising the power' of the appointing 
authority, which is subordinate to Government, to dismiss ~ 
Government servant from service - In the instant case, r; 38 
providing for remedy of review, and rule 14 (2) took care to 
754 
+-
t 
... 
GOVERNMENT OF A.P. & ANR. v. N. RAMANAIAH 
755 
see that constitutional guarantee enshrined in Article 311(1) 
A 
was . protected -
Andhra Pradesh Cil1il Services 
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 - rr. 14(2) 
and 38. 
A departmental enquiry was in$tituted against the 
8 
respondent, an Assistant Engineer In the R and B 
Department of Andhra Pradesh, on the charge that he 
misappropriated bitumen worth more than Rs. 40 lakh 
belonging to tl'le Government. On the report of the 
Enquiry Officer finding the charge against the . C 
respondent proved, the Government issued a show 
cause notice to him under r.21 (4) of the Andhra Pradesh 
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 
1991 of proposed punishment of dismissal. On receipt of 
the defence statement, the Government with concurrence 
of the State Public Service Commission dismissed the 
D 
-respondent from sevice. The A.P. Administrative Tribunal, 
upheld the dismissal order. But the High Court in the.writ 
petition filed by the respondent quashed the said order 
on the ground that the order of dismissal having been 
passed by the State Government, the employee was 
E 
deprived of his right of appeal. 
In the instant appeal field by the State Government, 
the question for consideration before the Court was : 
whether the order of dismissal passed by the State 
F 
Government suffered from any illegality on the ground 
that it deprived the respondent of his valuable right to 
prefer ~n appeal had it been passed by the appointing 
authority which wa$ $ubordinate to the Government; and 
consequently, whether the order suffered from any G 
jurisdictional error. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HelEt: 1.1. Sub-rule (2) of _r. 14 of the Andhra Pradesh 
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 
H 
756 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009) 9 S.C.R. 
A 
~991 clearly enables not only the appointing authority but 
any authority to which the appointing authority is 
$ubordinate to impose penalties including the dismissal 
of Government servant from service. The power is 
concurrently conferred upon the appointing authority as 
s well as the authority to which the appointing authority is 
subordinate. There is no dispute that the Engineer-in-
Chief being the appointing authority in respect of the post 
that was held by the respondent at the time of initiation 
of disciplinray enquiry was the disciplinary authority 
c (competent to impose upon the respondent the penalty 
. of dismissal under r.9) and was subordinate to the 
Government. Therefore, it cannot be said that the 
Government had no jurisdiction or authority under the 
Rules to impose a major penalty on· a member of 
0 Subordinate Service. [Para_ 11] [764-F-H; 765-A-B] 
1.2. The Constitution /of India being .the 
transcendental law, the rule making authority by making 
r. 14(2) took care to see that constitutional guarantee 
enshrined in Article 311(1) of the Con~titution which was 
E available to the Government servant, was protected. That 
the construc

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.