1. Public servant dismissed following inquiry by a Tribunal; challenge to the Tribunal member's qualification under the Hyderabad Public Servants (Tribunal of Enquiry) Act, 1950. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1963 Supreme(SC) 10
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
22nd January, 1963
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.
M. Ramappa, Appellant
Versus
Govt. of A.P. and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 356 of 1962.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate (M/s. B. Parthasarthi and R. Vasudev Pillai, Advocates with him), for Appellant; Mr. D. Narasaraju, Advocate-General for the State of Andhra Pradesh (M/s. K. R. Chaudhuri and P. D. Menon Advocates, with him), for Respondents.
Advocates:
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, B.PARTHASARTHY, D.NARASARAJU, K.R.CHAUDHARY, P.D.MENON, R.V.PILLAI
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, B.PARTHASARTHY, D.NARASARAJU, K.R.CHAUDHARY, P.D.MENON, R.V.PILLAI
A notification under Section 122 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, allows the government to specify an authority competent to exercise functions under an existing law, effectively adapting that law to the notification and overriding inconsistent qualification requirements in the original statute.
Headnote:(A) Hyderabad Public Servants (Tribunal of Enquiry) Act, 1950 - Sections 3 and 4 - States Reorganisation Act, 1956 - Sections 120, 122 and 127 - Qualification of Tribunal member - Validity of appointment via notification - Power of State Government to specify competent authority - Notification under Section 122 adapts the existing law to the specified authority - Section 127 provides overriding effect to the States Reorganisation Act notwithstanding inconsistency with other laws. (Paras 6, 7)
(B) Adaptation of Laws - Power to adapt laws under Section 120 is distinct from the power to specify competent authorities under Section 122 - Adaptation under Section 120 is not a condition precedent to the issuance of a notification under Section 122. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
A public servant was dismissed from service following an inquiry by a disciplinary tribunal. The appellant challenged the dismissal on the ground that the presiding officer of the tribunal did not possess the requisite qualifications, specifically having not served as a Sessions Judge for the minimum period of three years as mandated by the governing state act. The government had, however, issued a notification under the States Reorganisation Act specifying the authority competent to exercise functions under the said act.
Findings of Court:
The appointment of the presiding officer was valid. The notification issued under the States Reorganisation Act empowered the officer to exercise functions under the existing law, and the law was to have effect accordingly, effectively adapting the law to the notification.
Issues: Whether a notification issued under Section 122 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, is sufficient to validate the appointment of an authority to exercise functions under an existing law, even if that authority does not meet the qualifications prescribed in the original law.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 127 of the States Reorganisation Act overrides any inconsistent provisions in other laws. Under Section 122, the government can specify an authority competent to exercise functions under any law in force, and such law shall have effect accordingly. This notification pro tanto adapts the existing law, making formal adaptation under Section 120 unnecessary as a condition precedent.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the appointment of a Tribunal member was invalid for failing to meet the qualification of being a Sessions Judge for three years under the Hyderabad Act. (Para 1 , 2 )
3. The States Reorganisation Act, specifically Section 122, allows the Government to specify an authority competent to exercise functions under an existing law via notification. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
4. A notification under Section 122 of the States Reorganisation Act adapts the existing law, validating the appointment of an authority regardless of qualifications in the original Act. (Para 6 , 7 )
5. Appeal dismissed; appointment of the Tribunal member held valid. (Para 7 )
6. Does a notification under Section 122 of the States Reorganisation Act override qualification requirements in an existing law?
Yes. Under Section 122, the Government can specify an authority competent to exercise functions under any law in force. Such a notification ensures the existing law has effect in a different manner, effectively adapting the law to the notification. (Para 6 , 7 )
7. Is formal adaptation under Section 120 of the States Reorganisation Act a prerequisite for issuing a notification under Section 122?
No. Adaptation under Section 120 is not a condition precedent to the issuance of a notification under Section 122. The notification itself makes the existing law apply in accordance with the notification, adapting it pro tanto. (Para 7 )
8. What is the effect of Section 127 of the States Reorganisation Act regarding inconsistencies with other laws?
Section 127 provides that the provisions of the States Reorganisation Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law. (Para 5 , 6 )
Judgment
HIDAYATULLAH, J.: This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated December 13, 1960, dismissing Writ Petition No. 46 of 1960. The petitioner is the appellant before us. The respondents to this appeal are the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Chairman of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Andhra Pradesh. The appellant was a servant in the Hyderabad Revenue Service and in 1956 was holding the post of Deputy Secretary to the Government in the Public Works Department. On a report submitted by the C.I.D. the Government of Andhra Pradesh ordered an inquiry under S. 4 of the Hyderabad Public Servants (Tribunal of Enquiry) Act, 1950 (Hyderabad Act No. XXIII of 1950) by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings. The Tribunal enquired into 19 charges and submitted its report on July 11, 1959. The Tribunal found 4 charges proved and in view of the first charge which involved acceptance of a bribe and charge No. 14 which related to tampering with official records, the Tribunal recommended that the appellant be dismissed from service. After due notice to the appellant the Government of Andhra Pradesh ordered the dismissal of the appellant. The appellant thereupon moved a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution requesting that the order passed by Government be quashed. The appellant, inter alia, contended that under the Hyderabad Public Servants (Tribunal of Enquiry) Act, 19050, the Tribunal could only consist of persons who were judicial officers employed as Sessions Judges in the territory of India for a period of not less than 3 years. He contended that though the enquiry had properly commenced before Mr. R. Bhaskara Rao, who functioned as the Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal upto April 19, 1959, he was succeeded by Mr. M. Sriramamurthy who was not qualified but who heard the arguments and submitted the report. He contended that Mr. Sriramamurthy had not held the office of a Sessions Judge for three years. The only question, which was considered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, was whether in the circumstances Mr. Sriramamurthy was disqualified to act as the Tribunal. The High Court held that in view of the provisions of the States Reorganisation Act and the Notification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh on November 1, 1956, by which the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings in Andhra Pradesh was named as the authority to function under the Hyderabad Public Servants (Tribunal of Enquiry) Act, 1950 Mr. Sriramamurthy was competent to exercise functions exercisable under the Hyderabad Act. The High Court accordingly dismissed the petition.
2. It is contended by Mr. Viswanatha Sastri that the appointment of Mr. Sriramamurthy was incompetent because he was not qualified to act as the Tribunal of Enquiry under the Hyderabad Act. We are concerned with the Hyderabad Act and the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (Act No. XXXVII of 1956). The relevant provisions of the first Act are Ss. 3 and 4 and they may now be seen. Section 3 of the Hyderabad Public Servants (Tribunal of Enquiry) Act, 1950, in so far as it is material, reads as follows:-
"3. ( 1) A Tribunal consisting of one or more members shall be constituted for the purpose of this Act.
2. Every member of the Tribunal shall be a judicial officer who has been employed as a Sessions Judge in the territory of India for a period of not less than three years......
Section 4 reads as follows :-
"4. Government may, and in such cases, if any, as may be prescribed, shall refer to the Tribunal for enquiry and report any case involving an allegation of misconduct or inefficiency or disloyalty on the part of a public servant.
3. The corresponding provisions in the State of Andhra before the formation of the State of Andhra Pradesh were the Andhra Civil Services (Disiciplinary Tribunals) Rules, 1953, which were made under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution. Under those Rules which came into force on Oc
