LexSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus S. N. NIZAMUDDIN ALI KHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
12 8 A STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. S. N. NIZAMUDDIN ALI KHAN August 5, 1976 B [A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] c D E F G H Constitution of lndi11, Article 311(2), violation of-Penalty of compulsory retirement-Hyderabad Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules-Reasonable oppdrtunity of defence at the stages of enquiry and punish. mellt-Cr.msideration of extraneous matters in recommendation of penalty by -,J High Court Chief Justice, whether valid. The respondent, Munsiff Magistrate, was found guilty in an enquiry held by a. High Court Judge, regarding serious allegations against him. The Chief Justice of the High Court also examined the evidence on his own, and confirm- ing the findings of the. Enquiry Officer, recommended compulsory retirement. Both reports were sent to the Government, and a show-cause 'notice with the Enquiry Officer's report was issued to the respondent. Later, with the Pnblic Servioe Commission's approval, the resPQndent was compulsorily retired. Hi9 appeal to the Rajpramukh was dismissed, but the City Civil Court and the High Court decided in his favour. The question before this Court was, whether the Chief Just'ce's report wa'. in accordance with the Hyderabad CiVil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and the High Court Act, and whether the failure to communi- cate it to the respondent, amounted td a denial of reasonable opportunity for defending himself at the stages of enquiry and punishment. Dismissing the appeal, the Court, HELD : (I) The report of the Chief Justice of the proposed punishment of compulsory retirement took into consideration extraneous matters, and he was not authorised to do so under the Rules, or the High Court Act. The report was based, to a la,rge extent, oh secret information which the respondent had · no opportunity of meeting. [132 D-E] (2) The Government accepted the Chief Justice·s report and took action on it. The report was not given to the respondent. He was denied the oppor· tunity of being heard' at that stage of ehqui:ry. The respondent was denied a reasonable opportunity of making a representation against the penalty proposed by the Government. [132 E-F] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :Civil Appeal No. 1863 of 1968. P. Ram Reddy, K. Jayaram and A. V. V. Nair, for the appellant. T. C. Raghavan, B. Parthasarathi and S. Shaukat Hussain, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, C.J. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment dated 3 April, 1967 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The respondent filed this suit to set aside the order of compulsory retirement on the ground that it was illegal, wrongful, ultra vir.es and inoperative. The respondent alleged that the depa~~enta~ enquiry was initiated by the Chief Justice and not by the Adm1mstrat1ve Bench. of the High Court which alone could do so under the Hyderabad High Court Act. The respondent alleged that he wa.s not given a reason~ble opportunity inasmuch as the report of the Enqurry Officer was submitted ., -L - \ STATE OF A.P. V. S. N. NIZAMUDDIN (Ray, C.J.) 1.29 to the Chief Justice and not to the Administrative Bench and that the Public Service Commission was not consulted. The respondent further alleged that the Chief Justice added his own findings to the report of the Enquiry Officer while sending it to the Government and in doing so he took extraneous matters which had not been the subiect matter of the enquiry. The respondent alleged that he had no opportunity to de- fend himself \Wth reference to the findings of the Chief Justice. The High Court held that the report of the High Court took into consideration extraneous matters and thus deprived the respondent from giving a reasonable opportunity. The High Court, therefore, held that Article 311 ( 2) was violated. The High Court confirmed the de- cree of the trial Court but modified the order to the extent that the res- pondent was entitled to arrears of salary. The Hyderabad Civil ServJces (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules referred to as the Rules contain in Part III the following relevant provisions. Rule 9(b) states that compulsory retirement before com- pletion of 30 years or 25 years of qualifying service is one of the penal- ties. Rule 12 provides that the Government may impose any of the penalties mentioned in items (ii) to (viii) of Rule 9 on members of the State Servic
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.