_,
•
SAKTI THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, RAMPACHODAVARAM,
EAST GODA VARI DISTT., ANDHRA PRADESH
v.
R.K. RAGALA AND ORS.
NOVEMBER 6, 1995
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.N. K.IRPAL, JJ.]
Se1vice Law :
A
B
Depa1tmental proceedings-Show cause notice lo delinquent-High
C
Court quashing show cause notice-Meanwhile employee superan-
nuated-Held, though High Cowt not justified in inteifering at notice stage,
since employee has superannuated no useful pwpose would be seived to
continue the proceedings.
The appellant filed the appeal by special leave against the judgment D
of the High Court quashing the show cause notice issued to respondent
No.1.
Disposing of the appeal, this Court
HELD : Though the High Court was not justified in interfering at
the notice stage, since the respondent has retired from service, no useful
purpose would be served to continue the proceedings pursuant to the show
cause notice which was quashed by the High Conrt. However, if the
children of the respondent lay any Claim on the basis that they are
Scheduled Tribes, the appropriate authorities would decide their claim in
accordance with law. (796-C-D]
K.wnuri Madhwi Patil v.Additional Commissioner, (1994] 6 SCC 241
and Director of T1ibal Welfare Govemmem of A.P. v. Laveti Giri &Am:, JT
(1995) 3 SC 684, relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE .JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10754 of
1995.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.1.94 of the Andhra Pradesh
E
F
G
High Court in W.A. No. 917 of 1992.
H
795
796
,SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A
Dr. M.P. Raju and M.K.D. Namboodiri, for the Appellant.
'
B
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Permission lo file S.L.P. is granted.
Leave granted.·
Since the first r c>nondent now stands retired from service, no useful
purpose will be served ~o continue the proceedings pursuant lo the show
cause notice which w;,s quashed by the High Court. No doubt the High
Court was not justified in exercising its power to nip the action in the bud
C at the notice stage itself. As regards the law, recently this Court has
considered the controversy and laid the law in Kumari Madhuri Patil v.
Additional Commissioner, [1994] 6 SCC 241 and Director of Tribal Welfare,
Government of A.P. v. Laveti Gi1i & Alli'., JT (1995) 3 SC 684. The ratio of
the High Court decision is no longer good law.
D
Under these circumstances, we think that no useful purpose will be
E
served to continue the proceedings. However, if the children of the first
respondent lay any claim on the basis that they are Scheduled Tribes, it
would be open to the appropriate authorities to take appropriate decision
or action as is warranted under law.
The appeal is disposed of with the above observations.
R.P.
Appeal disposed of.
'
•
Lex