In The Matter Of T. V. Choudhary, A Member Of The Indian Administrative Service (Under Suspension) : E. S. Reddi vs Chief Secretary, Govt. of A. P. : Chief Secretary, Govt. of A. P.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1987 Supreme(SC) 489

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.P.Sen : B.C.Ray
In The Matter Of T.V.Choudhary, A Member Of The Indian Administrative Service (Under Suspension) : E.S.Reddi
Versus
Chief Secretary, Government Of A.P.: Chief Secretary, Government Of A.P.
Case No. : 25533 of 1986
Date of Decision : 5/1/87
Advocates Appeared: Chari T.V.S.N. : Chitale Y.S. : Grover Vrinda : Monigude Sunila : Pappu Shyamala : Parthasarthi B. : Podwal Malini : Rao B.Kanta : Rao P.P. : Sawhney B.B. : Sawhney Indra

Advocates:
B.B.Sawhney, B.Kanta Rao, B.PARTHASARTHY, Indra Sawhney, MALINI PODVAL, P.P.Rao, SHYAMALA PAPPU, SUNILA MONIGUDE, T.V.S.N.Chari, VRINDA GROVER, Y.S.Chitale

Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - S. 5 - Indian Penal Code - S. 120/ 420 – Employment and Service – First Information report - as General Manager, Functional Director, Member, Board of Directors and Vice-Chairman-cum-Managing Director and was involved in the commission of the alleged irregularities, had merely been transferred from the Corporation and posted as Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State Textile Development Corporation. That objection of his was sustained before the learned Single Judge who by his judgment quashed the impugned order of suspension. The Division bench however by the judgment under appeal has reversed that judgment and dismissed the writ petition holding that the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge are not warranted by material on record – Held, By virtue of the pre-eminence which senior counsel enjoy in the profession, they not only carry greater responsibilities but they also act as a model to the junior members of the profession. A senior counsel more or less occupies a position akin to a Queens counsel in England next after the Attorney General and the Solicitor General - It is an honor and privilege conferred on advocates of standing and experience by the chief justice and the Judges of this court. They thus become leading counsel and take precedence on all counsel not having that rank. A senior counsel though he cannot draw up pleadings of the party, can nevertheless be engaged "to settle" i.e. to put the pleadings into "proper and satisfactory form" and hence a senior counsel settling pleadings has a more onerous responsibility as otherwise the blame for improper pleadings will be laid at his doors - Lord Reid in has succinctly set out the conflicting nature of the duties a counsel has to perform in his own inimitable manner as follows - Every counsel has a duty to his client fearlessly to raise every issue, advance every argument, and ask every question, however distasteful, which he thinks will help his clients case. As an officer of the court concerned in the administration of justice, he has an overriding duty to the court, to the standards of his profession, and to the public, which may and often does lead to a conflict with his clients wishes or with what the client thinks are his personal interests. Counsel must not mislead the court, he must not lend himself to casting aspersions on the other party or witnesses for which there is no sufficient basis in the information in his possession, he must not withhold authorities or documents which may tell against his clients but which the law or the standards of his profession require him to produce. By so acting he may well incur the displeasure or worse of his client so that if the case is lost, his client would or might seek legal redress if that were open to him – Order accordingly

A.P.SEN,J.

(1) THIS is an application made by one T. V. Choudhary, a member of the Indian Administrative Service, under suspension, for recalling the courts orders dated 5/05/1986 and 11/08/1986 passed in Special Leave Petition No. 14045 of 1985.

(2) WE shall first deal with the special leave petition of E. S. Reddi, a member of the Indian Administrative Service belonging to Andhra Pradesh cadre and who worked as the Vice-Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Andhra Pradesh Mining Corporation. It is directed against a judgment of the division bench of the High court dated 18/10/1985 reversing the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge dated 2/09/1985 and dismissing his petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. By the writ petition, the petitioner had called in question the validity of an order of the State government of Andhra Pradesh dated 11/02/1985 placing him under suspension under sub-rule (1) of Rule 13 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1963. The main grievance of the petitioner before the High court was that the impugned order of suspension was wholly mala fide, arbitrary and irrational and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as there was no justification for the differential treatment meted out to him while the applicant T. V. Choudhary, also a member of the Indian Administrative Service, who worked in various capacities viz. as General Manager, Functional Director, Member, Board of Directors and Vice-Chairman-cum-Managing Director and was involved in the commission of the alleged irregularities, had merely been transferred from the Corporation and posted as Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State Textile Development Corporation. That objection of his was sustained before the learned Single Judge who by his judgment dated 2/09/1985 quashed the impugned order of suspension. The Division bench however by the judgment under appeal has reversed that judgment and dismissed the writ petition holding that the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge are not warranted by the material on record.

(3) CIVIL Miscellaneous Petition No. 25510/86 is filed by R. Parthasarthy, a member of the Indian Administrative Service who was Vice-Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Corporation for the period from March 197 9/10/1979 and was working as the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, while Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 25533/86 is by T. V. Choudhary. also a member of the Indian Administrative Service and who was working as the Managing Director of the Andhra Pradesh State Textile Development Corporation. These two applications are for recalling the courts orders dated 5/05/1986 and August II. 1986 on the ground that they prejudicially affect the applicants. The matter relates to defalcation of a huge amount of Rs. 1.50 crores by certain officers of the State government whose services were placed on deputation with the Corporation. Admittedly, the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Andhra Pradesh has registered a case against these officers for having committed alleged offences punishable under S. 120-B read with S. 420 of the Indian Penal Code and S. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as its preliminary report revealed a prima facic case against them.

(4) ON 12/12/1985 the court issued notice on the special leave petition. It appeared from the counter-affidavit filed by the State government that the Anti-Corruption Bureau had finalised the investigation and the Director General had submitted his report dated 25/03/1986 which was under consideration of the government. It also appeared that the State government of Andhra Pradesh had addressed letters dated 2/05/1984 for sanction of the central government under S. 6(l)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for the prosecution of R. Parthasarthy and of the State government of Maharashtra for the prosecution of P. Abraham, INDIAN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE as he is borne

Click Here to Read the rest of this document