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 Octobe