STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus DR. K. RAMCHANDRAN

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 23 · Decided: 07-01-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
v. 
DR.K.RAMCHANDRAN 
JANUARY 7, 1998 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND G.B. PATTANAiK, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
A.P. Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960. 
Section 4 (as it stood prior to amendment by A.P. Act 6 of 1993)-
Disciplinary proceedings-Reference to Tribunal-Requirement of-Penalty 
imposed on employee without referring the case to Tribunal-Validity-Held 
: It is mandatory to refer disciplinary case to Tribunal-Penalty, imposed 
A 
B 
c 
without jurisdiction and hence illegal. 
D 
Interpretation of Statutes : 
Rules of interprelation-Subsidigry rule-Mandatory or directory--
Amendment-Word "shall" replaced by word "may"-Held: This shows the 
amended provision is discretionary whereas the unamended provision is E 
mandatory. 
The appellant State had imposed a penalty of 20% cut in the pension 
of the respondent for a period of 5 years. By another order the appellant 
refused to treat the period of suspension of the respondent as period spent 
on duty. The respondent challenged the aforesaid orders before the State F 
Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the aforesaid orders on the 
ground that Government had no jurisdiction to hold disciplinary proceedings 
as such proceedings had to be referred to the Tribunal under Section 4 of 
the A.P. Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960. Hence 
this appeal. 
G 
In the meanwhile Section 4 of the Act was amended by the A.P. Act 6 
of 1993 and the word ''shall" occurring in Section 4 was replaced by the 
word "may" by inserting Section 4-A in the Principal Act. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
. 
23 
H 
24 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] l S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1.1. In view of the word "shall" occurring in Section 4 of the 
A.P. 9vil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act. 1960 the case 
of an employee Committing misconduct has to be referred to the Tribunal 
constituted under the Act for holding disciplinary proceedings. When the 
disciplinary proceedings were started against the respondent, the government 
r 
.. 
B had no jurisdiction to h(lld departmental proceedings for the misconduct 
committed by the respondent. It had no choice except to refer the case to the 
~ 
Tribunal. (26 G-H; 27-A] 
1.2. Section 4 of the Act which was mandatory was amended by A.P. 
Act 6of1993 and the word "shall" occurring in Section 4 was replaced by 
C the word "may", which gave a discretion to the Government to refer or not 
to refer the matter to the Tribunal. Section 4-A which was inserted in the 
Principal Act by the same amending Act also indicates that the choice to 
refer or not to refer the case to the tribunal for disciplinary proceeding or 
to withdraw any case already referred to the Tribunal, became available to 
the Government only after the amendment of the principal Act by Act 6 of 
D 1993 and not before that. (27 B-C] 
~ 
E 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 914of1986. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.6.85 of the Andhra Pradesh 
Administrative Tribunal in R.P. No. 62 of 1982. 
Mr. G. Prabhakar for the Appellant. 
Ex-parte for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SAGHTR AHMAD, J. By G.O (iv!S) M & H dated march 3, 1981, the 
Government of Andhra Pradesh had imposed the penalty of 20% cut in the 
pension of the respondent for a period of 5 year. By another order G.0. 1278 
M & H dated 10.8.1981, the Government refused to treat the period cf 
G suspension of the respondent as period spent on duty. Both the orders were 
challenged by the respondent before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative 
Tribunal, which by its Judgment dated 22nd June, 1985 allowed the petition 
and set aside the above orders on the ground that the Government had no 
jurisdiction to hold disciplinary proceedings as the disciplinary proceedings 
could be held only by the Tribunal constituted under the Andhra Pradesh 
H civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960. 
STATE v. DR. K. RA.MCHANDRAN [SAGHIR AHMAD, J.) 
25 
-<, 
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state of Andhra Pradesh A 
'-"' 
contends that the Government being the employer and the Authority which 
can pass final orders of punishment in disciplinary proceedings, retains its 
jurisdiction to proceed departmentally against its employees for mis-conduct 
committed by them in spite of the Tribunal constituted under the Act of 1960 
for holding disciplinary proceedings and therefore the decision of the Tribunal B

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