LexM. RAMAPPA versus GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 671 was made. That is another reason why the present petition must faiL We therefore dismiss the appeal and pass no order as to costs in respect thereof. We dismiss the writ petition with costs. Appeal dism·issed. Writ petition dismissed. ---- M. RAMAPPA t•. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER (B. P. S1mu, C. ]., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHUO, M. HrnAYATULLAH and J: C. SHAH, .JJ.) Stale Service-Dismissal of employee-Appointment of Tribunnl-Validity-8'1derabad Public Scn;ants (Tribunal of E11q1>iry) Act, 1950 (Hyd. XXl!l of 1.950), ss. 3, 4-Andnra Civil .\]ervire.'i (Di.<ctplinary Tr1'.bunal) Rules, J9.53-i..9tates Reorganisation Act, 1966 (XXXVII of 19-56), ss. 115, 120, 121, 122, 127. The appellant was a servant in the Hyderabad Revenue Service and was holding the post of Deputy Secretary to the Govern1 .1e11t in the Public YVorks Department. The Govern- ment of Andhra Pradesh ordered an enquiry by the Tribunal for Disciplinary pr.)ceedings. The Tribunal enquired into the charges and recommended the dismissal of the appellam from service and after due notice to the appellant the Government of Andhra Pradesh ordered his. dismissal. The appellant ·,here- upon m·Jved a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for quashing the afon·said order, which wa.s dismissed by the High Court. In this Court it was urged by the appellant that the appointment of 1fr. Sriram?lrnurlhy was incompc:tent as he was 1963 K.S. Ram·imurthi Reddiar •. The Chief Commis~ sio114r, Pondich~"Y Wanchoo, ). 1963 I onuarv, 22. 1963 M,Rama#IJ v. C11W1nmtnl of Jf.ndllro Prat/Uh Hi<layatu/W, J. 672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS[l964] VOL. not qualified to act as the Tribunal of Enquiry under the Hyderabad Act. Held, that by virtue of s. 127 thereof the States Reorgani- sation Act applied even if it was inconsistent with anything in the Hyderabad Public Servants Act, 1950. By reason of s. 127 and the power granted by s. 1~2 it was competent to the C'n>vernment of Andhra Pradesh to name an authority under the Hyderabad Act even though that authority might not have been qualified under the latter Act. The concluding words of s. 122 shew that on the notification issuing under s. 122 the existin.:z: law i1self was ro have effect in a different manner. Section 122 thu' made the Hyderabad Act speak in accordanct with the notification issued under s. 122. That Act after the notification applied in <lccordance with the notification and was pro /an/o adapted by the Notification. The adaptation of the Hyderabad Act under s. 120 was not a condition precedent to the issuance of the notification and Notification having issued the Hyderalw< Act applied accordingly and the appointment of ~·fr. Srira11~.~murthy ,~:as therefore valid. C1vrL .(\PPt;L, •.TE JURISDICTfOX : Civil Appeal No. 356 of 1962. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 13, 1960, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 46 of 19f10 . .4. I'. Vi.<uxmatha Sastri, B. Parthasarthi and R. l'asu.dev Pillai, for the appellant. n. NarsaraJ°u, Adrncrite-General for the Sta~ of Andhra Pmrlesh, K. fl. Chnudhri and P. D . .Menan. for the respondents. 19G3. January 22. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HmAYATUJ,LAJI, J.-This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated December 13, 19ti0, dismissing Writ Petition No. 46 of 1960. The petitioner is the appellant before us. The respon· dents to this appeal are the Government of Andhra 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 673 Pradesh ·and the Chairman of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Andhra Pradesh. The · appellant was ·a servant in the Hyderabad Revenue Service and in 1956 was holding the post of Deputy Secretary to the Government in the Public Works Department. On a report submitted by the C.I.D. the Government of Andhra Pradesh ordered an inquiry under s. 4 of the Hyderabad Public Strva~ts (Tribunal of Enquiry) Act, 1950 (Hyderabad Act No. XXIII of l!l50) by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings. The Tribm1al enquired into 19 charges and submitted its report on Jnly ll, 1959. The Tribunal found 4 charges proved and ii; view of the first charge which involved acceptance of a bribe and charge No. 14 which related to tami:;ering with official records, the Tribunal recommended that the appell
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.