LexTHE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS versus CH. GANDHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND
OTHERS
v.
CH. GANDHI
(Civil Appeal No. 1427-1428 of 2013)
FEBRUARY 19, 2013
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]
SERVICE LAW:
Disciplinary proceedings - Penalty - Disciplinary
proceedings initiated under unamended rule - Penalty
imposed in terms of amended rule - Held: In the case at
hand, the disciplinary proceeding was initiated by serving a
charge-sheet for the purpose of imposition of a major penalty
- Employee had no vested right to be imposed a particular
punishment as envisaged under the unamended rules -
Unamended r.9(vii) was only dealing with reduction or
reversion, but stipulation of postponement of future
increments has come by way of amendment - The same
being a lesser punishment than the maximum, is imposable
and the disciplinary authority has not committed any error by
imposing the said punishment, regard being had to the nature
of charges - It does not violate any Constitutional protection -
Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, 1991 - r. 9(vii)(b).
Service Law - Conditions of service - Amendment -
Retrospective operaion - Held: There is a presumption
against the retrospective operation of a statute - A substituted
provision is the resultant factor of the amendment in the Rules
and it shall guide the consequences that follow from the
amended Rules - In the instant case, the amended Rule
despite having been substituted has no retrospective effect.
[2013] 2 S.C.R. 20
20
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
21
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.
v. CH. GANDHI
Disciplinary proceedings initiated against the
respondent, a Senior Accountant in the Sub-Treasury,
culminated in the penalty of his reversion to the post of
Junior Accountant for two years with the stipulation that
there would be postponement of future increments. The
State Administrative Tribunal upheld the order. The High
Court set aside the punishment holding that it amounted
to imposition of two penalties. However, the authorities
were granted liberty to pass appropriate orders keeping
in view the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991.
In the instant appeals filed by the State Government
the question for consideration before the Court was:
whether the punishment could be imposed in accord
with the amended Rules or under the unamended Rules?
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The disciplinary proceedings were
initiated under the unamended Rules. The disciplinary
authority has imposed the penalty under substituted sub-
rule (vii) of r. 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991.
However, the amended Rules were not brought to the
notice of the High Court and it has referred to the
unamended Rules.There is a presumption against the
retrospective operation of a statute, and further a greater
retrospectivity cannot be conferred on a statute than the
language makes it necessary. [para 14, 15, 20 and 26] [32-
G; 33-A-B; 35-C; 38-C]
Union of India and Others v. K.V. Jankiraman and Others
1991 (3) SCR 790 =1991 (4) SCC 109; Delhi Development
Authority v. H.C. Khurana 1993 (2) SCR 1033 = 1993 (3) SCC
196; Union of India and Others v. Sangram Keshari Nayak
2007 (9) SCR 177 = 2007 (7) SCC 704; Coal India Ltd. and
Others v. Saroj Kumar Mishra 2007 (5) SCR 233 = 2007 (9)
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
22
SCC 625; Tejshree Ghag and Others v. Prakash Parashuram
Patil and Others 2007 (7) SCR 214 = 2007 (6) SCC 220; and
Marripati Nagaraja and Others v. Government of Andhra
Pradesh and Others 2007 (11) SCR 506 = 2007 (11) SCC
522; Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra and
Others 1994 (1) Suppl. SCR 360 = 1994 (4) SCC 602 -
referred to.
Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statute, 12th edition; and
Francis Bennion's Statutory Interpretation, 2nd Edn. -
referred to.
1.2 On a perusal of the unamended r.9, there can be
no doubt that clause (vii) only related to reduction to a
lower rank in the seniority list or to a lower time scale of
pay or in the lower grade or pay not being lower than that
to which he was directly recruited. It did not have the
stipulation of postponement of future increment on
restoration to the higher category. After the amendment,
r.9 (vii) has been bifurcated into two parts. Under r.
9(vii)(a), the punishment that is provided is reduction to
a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified
period with further directions as Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.