MOHAMMAD GHOUSE versus STATE OF ANDHRA

Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 414 · Decided: 29-11-1956 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1956 
A. S. Erishna 
v. 
State of Madras 
Venkalarama 
Ayy"' ], 
November, 29. 
414 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1957J 
offence under s. 4(1)(g) to be in possession of materials, 
still, 
implement 
or 
apparatus 
whatsoever 
for 
the 
tapping of toddy or the manufacture of liquor. Under 
s. 4(2)(a), if a person is found to be in possession of 
materials or other things mentioned in the sub-section,. 
there is a presumption that he has committed an 
offence under s. 4(1)(g), but it is open to him to account 
satisfactorily 
therefor. 
The 
contention, 
therefore, 
that 
there 
is 
no 
reasonable 
relation 
between 
the 
.presumption and the offence is, in our opinion, based 
on a misreading of the section. 
Both the contentions urged on behalf of the appel-
lants having failed, these appeals are dismissed. 
Appeal dismissed. 
MOHAMMAD GHOUSE 
ti. 
STATE OF ANDHRA 
[S. 
R. 
DAS 
C.J., 
BHAGWATI, 
VENKATARAMA 
AYYAR, 
B. P. SINHA and S. K. DAs, JJ.J 
Government - Servant-Judicial 
Officer-DiscipHnary 
Proceed-
ings-Enquiry into charges-Jurisdiction of the High Court-Order 
of suspension pending final orders by the Government-Power of the 
High Court-Constitution of India, Art. 311-.Madras Civil Services 
( ClaSJification, Control and Appeal) Rules, rr. 13, 17(e)-Madras 
Civil 
Services 
(Disciplinary 
Proceed in gs Tribunal) Rules, 1948-
And hra Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 
1953, r. 4(1) (a). 
The appellant was at the relevant dates posted as Subordinate 
Judge at Masulipatam and 
Amalapuram. 
Charges 
were made 
against him of bribery and serious irregularities in the discharge 
of official duties, and they were enquire<l into by one of the judges 
of the Madras High Court who sent his reports on 
August 
20, 
1953, and November 10, 1953. 
On the basis of the reports the 
High Court decided on January 25, 1954, that the appellant 
should be dismissed from service on the charge of bribery and 
ren1oved from 
service on the charge of irregularities, and on 
January 28, 1954, placed hi1n on suspension until further orders. 
The appellant moved the High Court under Art. 226 of the Con~ 
. stitution of lndia for quashing the order of suspension on the 
grmJnd (1) that under r. 4(1)(a) of the Andhra Civil Services (Dis· 
ciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1953, an enquiry into the· 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
415 
conduct of a Government 
servant 
drawing a monthly salary of 
Rs. 150 and above could be made only by a Tribunal to be 
appointed by the 
Government, and 
that 
as the 
rule -came into 
effect from October 1, 1953, the order of the Madras High Court 
dated January 28, 1954, was without jurisdiction, and (2) that the 
order was repugnant to Art. 311 of the Constitution of India. The 
High Court dismissed the application and on appeal 
against 
the 
judgment. 
Held : (I) that in view of the amendm~nt of r. 4 of the Andhra 
Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1953, on 
April I!, l 955, excluding, with retrospective 
effect, 
the 
jurisdic-
tion of the Tribunal in respect of enquiries into the conduct of 
the judicial officers, the order of the Madras High Court dated 
January 28, 1954, was not open to attack. 
(2) that an order of suspension pending final orders is neither 
one of dismissal nor of removal 
of service within Art. 311 of the 
Constitution. 
( 3) that under r. 13 of the Madras Civil Services ( Classifica-
tion, Control and Appeal) Rules, the High Court had the power to 
impose suspension 
pending enquiry into grave charges 
under 
r. 17 ( e) against the Members of the State Judicial Service. 
C1vIL 
APPELLATE 
JuRISDICTION: 
Civil 
Appeal 
No. 133 of 1955. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated 
November 19, 1954, of the Andhra High 
Court in Writ Petition No. 342 of 1954. 
N. C. Chatterji, M. S. K. Sastri and Sardar Bahadur, 
for the appellant. 
Porus A. Mehta, T. V. R. Tatachari and T. M. Sen, 
for the respondent. 
1956. 
November 29. 
The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
VENKATARAMA 
AYYAR 
J.-The 
appellant 
was 
recruited to the Madras Provincial Judicial Service as 
District Munsif in 1935. 
In 1949 he was promoted to 
the office of Subordinate Judge, and on June 19, 1950, 
he was 
posted as Subordinate Judge of Masulipatnam, 
Krishna 
District. 
Among the suits which he tried 
were O.S. No. 95 of 1946 an<l O.S. No. 24 of 1949, which 
were connected, and on July 27, 1950, arguments were 
heard therein, and judgme

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