Back
1982 Supreme(AP) 258
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.RAMACHANDRA RAO, SRIRAMULU
V.Krishnam Raju - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P.rep.by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad - Respondent
W. P. No. 266/78
Decided On : 08-10-82
Advocates Appeared :
.
Headnote:A. P. VILLAGE OFFICES RULES, 1969, Rules 10 (2) (ii) (c) and 52 (ii) - Conviction of a Village Officer in a Criminal Case under Sec. 341 I.P.C. and Sec. 4 (10) of the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 - Order of Revenue Divisional Officer exonerating the Village Officer and reinstating him in service - Order of Commissioner in exercise of suo motu powers under Rule 75 setting aside the order of Revenue Divisional Officer and dismissing the Village Officer from service - Valid.
HELD: When the petitioner who is a Village Officer and who is expected to maintain peace and harmony amongst the various sections of the people, is found guilty of the offence of "untouchability", it will not be safe or expedient to allow such a person to continue to hold the Office of Village Munsif. Under Rule 10 (2) (ii) (c) of the Rules, a person who has been convicted by a Criminal Court for any offence involving moral turpitude is not eligible for appointment as a Village Officer. A person who is convicted for the offence of "untouchability" which is punishable under Article 17 of the Constitution read with Sec. 4 (10) of the Untouchability (Offence) Act, 1955 is guilty of an offence Involving moral turpitude and therefore, he will stand disqualified for holding the post of Village Munsif. When the conviction of the petitioner was upheld by the criminal Courts including the High Court for an offence under Sec 4 (10) of the Untouchability (Offences) Act, it Is not for the Revenue Divisional Officer to sit in Judgment over the said conviction and come to the conclusion that the Petitioner was implicated In the Criminal Case due to factions in the Village. The Revenue-authorities are bound to give effect to the conviction for the offences with which the petitioner was charged and therefore the action of the Revenue Divisional Officer In coming to the conclusion on the report of the Tahsildar that the petitioner was falsely implicated in a Criminal Case is wholly Improper and unwarranted. The Revenue Divisional Officer did not rightly exercise his discretion in exonerating the petitioner from the charge and reinstating him into Office and the Commissioner as well as the Government rightly acted in setting aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer and dismissing the Petitioner from service. W P. Dismissed.
( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the government in Memo No. 5456/h1/77-1, dated 30-12-1977 confirming the order of the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Andhra Pradesh in c. P. Rt. No. 2872/77, dt. 7-12-1977 dismissing the petitioner from service as village Munsif.
( 2 ) THE relevant facts are as follows:- the petitioner was the permanent village Munsif of Chevuru village in kandukur Taluq. Prakasam District. On 20-9-1974 certain Kshatriyas and Yadavas of Yelurupudu village obstructed a marriage party of Harijans of the village from proceeding in a car in procession to Bangaramma temple, and when the Harijans insisted on continuing the procession there was stone throwing on the marriage party which resulted in injuries to some of the Harijans including the Bridegroom. The Village Munsif along with 27 others was prosecuted in C. C. No. 217/74 on the file of the judicial First Class Magistrate, Kanciukur under Sections 341 323 read with sections 149 and 147 I. P. C. and Section 4 (10) of the Untouchability (Offences) Act 1955. The Magistrate convicted the petitioner and other accused for the offences under Section 341 I. P. C. and 323 read with section 149 I PC for a period of six months and also for the offence under section 4 (10) of the Untouchability (Offences) Act. On appeal in Criminal appeal No. 39/75, the learned Sessions Judge, Ongole acquitted 24 persons but confirmed the conviction of the four accused including the petitioner and set aside the sentence of imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 50/- for the offence under section 341 I P C and a fine of rs. 300/- for the offence under sec. 4 (10) of the Untouchability (Offences) act, 1955. The petitioner and the three other convicted accused preferred a revision petition to the High Court in Criminal Revision Case No. 813/75 and the revision was dismissed on 15-4-76.
( 3 ) IT may be mentioned that immediately after the incident occured on 20-9-1974, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur by order dated 23-9-1974 placed the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry in the interests of public Administration, as the petitioner was directly involved in a grave offence. But, this order of suspension was revoked by order dated 13-11-1976 and the petitioner reinstated into service from that date. However, the Revenue Divisonal Officer directed that as the petitioner was responsible for misconduct, charges should be framed for misconduct and further action taken separately. In his proceedings dated 23-3-1977, the Revenue Divisional Officer framed the following charges against the petitioner and Rule 52 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) village Offices Service Rules, 1969. charge 1 - That he as permanent village munsif of Chevur village instead of maintaining law and order in the village, being a village munsif joined hands with the caste ryots of Yeiurpad village in the high handed action in pelting stones on the marriage party of Harijans of Yeiurpad village when they wore proceeding to Bangaramma temple on 19-9-1974, which resulted in injuries to some of the Harijans including the bridegroom. Charge 2 :- That his involvement in grave offences u/s. 147, 148, 149, 341, 324 and 120-B IPC and section 4 of the Untouchability (offences) Act (XXII of 1955) led him to conviction in Court of Judicial first Class Magistrate, Kandukur, u/s. 341 I P C and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- and also convicted under Sec. 4 (10) of the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- in c. C. No. 217/74 of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kandukur which were also confirmed by the District Judge, Ongole and the High Court of andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad on C. A. No. 39/75 and Criminal Revision case No. 813/1975 respectively.
( 4 ) THE charge memo was served on the petitioner on 12-1-1977 and he submitted his written explanation on 9-2-77 denying the charges and he appeared before the Revenue Divisional Of
