M. N. DASANNA versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 172 · Decided: 02-05-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

M. N. DASANNA 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
May 2, 1973. 
[A. N. GROVER, A. K. MUKHERJEA AND C. A. VAIDJALINGAM, IJ:) 
A.ndhra Pradesh Civil Service (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 
1960-Rule 7 read with the proviso-I/ a report submitted by the 
Chairmo11 
who heard only the arguments but did not hold the enquiry himself is a valid 
revort under the vroviso to Sec. 7. 
The appellant was the officer-in-charge of Vijaywada Government Head· 
·quarter$ Hospital. On a reference by the Government of Andhra 
Pardesh, 
the Tribunal under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Service (Disciplinary Proceedings 
Tribunal) Act, 1960, framed a number of 
char~s against him. Proceedings 
by the Tribunal were first conducted before one K, the Chairman of the Tribunal. 
The Tribunal consisted of two members. Charges were fram ·ct and, the ca!i:C 
·was transferred to the other member N. The case was later withdrawn from 
him and K continued the enquirv until March 21. 1963 and examined certain 
witnesses. On the same date. the case was transferred to one s. who had suc-
·Cceded N. 
S, held the enquiry for sometime. and examined a number of wit· 
nesses. He retired in July 1963. One G. who succeeded him continued to hold 
the enquiry and examined some 
witnesses. 
After the written statement of 
the appellant had been filed and his witnesses 
had been examined, he heard 
arguments but before he could submit a report S, was 
transferred and was 
succeeded by _one C, who was the·n the Chairman of the Tribunal. He submit-
ted a report on July 31, 1964. He held that out of 22 charges only 10 had 
been proved. 
Thereafter, a notice was Sent to the appel1ant bjr the State to 
show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. and on September 3, 
1964, the State directed that the penalty of dismissal 
be imposed on the 
appellant. 
Tbe appellant moved the High Court challenging the order of dismissal 
mainly on the ground that the proceedings before the Tribunal were vitiated 
from b~glnning to end. While the writ petition was pending. a decision was 
given by a Division Bench of the High Court construing identical provisions of 
the Hyderabad Public Services (Tribunal Enquiry) Act that where one mem-
ber alone conducted an enquiry and submitted his report, that repOrt was in· 
valid. In the meantime, an amendment was made in s. 7 of the Andhra Pra· 
desb Act by adding a proviso, which provided that where a single member. of 
the Tribunal holds an inquiry, be alone shall report his findings and it wilt be 
deemed to be a report of the Tribunal 
for the purposes 
of the Act. The 
appelJant submitted that the amendment did not make any difference to his 
case; but the High Court negatived his contention 
and dismissed 
the writ 
petition. 
Allowing the appeal. 
HELD : (i) According to the substantive oart of s. 7 of the Andhra Pra-
desh Civil Service (Disciplinary 
Proceedings Tri.bun al) Act, 1960, it .is the 
Tribunal which is to reoort the findings to the Government on the conclusion 
of the enquiry. In 0ther wonls, even if the enquiry was conducted bv one 
member. two members have to subtllit their report. if the Tribunal consists of 
two members, as in the present case. The proviso only enables the report to be 
submitted by one 
member 
alone if the condition 
pr.e-requisite is satisfied, 
namely, that he has held the enquiry himself in the matter. If he has held tho 
enquiry instead of two members, bi!'.! report may l>e deemed to be the report of 
the Tribunal. 
· 
· 
To the present case, it is not in disnute that the Chairman of the Tribunal 
never conducted any part of the enquiry and that he had onlv heard argu-
me!1ts and then submitted his report giving his finding-,. 
In the judgment of the 
Andhra Pradesh High Court, C. K. Doraiswamy Naidu 
v. 
Andhra Pradesh 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
M. N. DASANNA V. A. P. STATE (GrQver, /.) 
173 
J.L.R. 1967 A.P. 904, it was laid down that the word 'Enquiry' under a. 8 of 1Jle 
Act doe. nol include a finding. The en9uiry was stated to cover the healina of 
che case. i.e .. recording evjdence, admitting documents and generally completina 
the records upgn which a finding will be based. Therefote, the stage of enquiry 
has to be completed before the argument is advanced as is clear from Rule 
7(l)(iii). The net result would be that according to the Act and the Rulea 
frained thereunder, arguments would not be a part of enquiry. 
The Chairmao 
of the Tribunal had only heard arguments and

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