Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : JAGMOHAN REDDY, P.CHANDRA REDDY
Mohd.Ghouse - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 01-30-59
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLES 309, 310, 311 - ANDHRA CIVIL SERVICES (DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1953 - ANDHRA CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES, 1953 - PUBLIC SERVANTS (INQUIRIES) ACT, 1850 - JUDICIAL OFFICERS - ENQUIRY INTO CONDUCT - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT - PROCEDURE - PUNISHMENT - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a District Munsif, was promoted to the office of Subordinate Judge and posted at Masulipatam in 1950. He was charged with bribery and irregularities in court work. The High Court of Madras stayed the delivery of judgment in the suits and transferred them to another court. The petitioner was also transferred to Amalapuram. Charges were framed against him with respect to the bribery and irregularities in official duties. An enquiry was held by one of the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Madras who held them to be proved. The petitioner was suspended until further orders. He filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madras challenging the jurisdiction of the High Court to suspend him. The writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner appealed by special leave to the Supreme Court who confirmed the order of the High Court and dismissed the appeal. The Government of Andhra gave a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause why in view of the findings he should not be dismissed from service as recommended by the enquiring Judge and confirmed by the High Court. The petitioner sent his explanation on the show-cause notice. The Government passed the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service.
Finding of the Court:
1. The High Court had jurisdiction to hold an enquiry into the conduct of the petitioner, who was an Assistant Sessions Judge, and to determine provisionally the punishment which should be imposed upon him prior to his being afforded a reasonable opportunity of showing cause, under Article 311 of the Constitution. 2. The proviso to Rule 4 (1) (a) of the Andhra Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1953, which excludes judicial officers from the purview of the Tribunal, also excludes them from the operation of Rule 5, which deals with the reference of cases to the Tribunal or to a Court of law. 3. The High Court was competent to make an enquiry against the petitioner, who was a District Judge within the meaning of Article 236 of the Constitution, and as such the enquiry by the High Court must be deemed to be a preliminary enquiry only declaring a prima facie case against the petitioner; as such the Government ought to have ordered another enquiry before the charges could be held proved against him. 4. The petitioner was not prejudiced by the fact that the 6th witness was not called in for his cross-examination and that the other five witnesses who were to have been cross-examined, have been examined afresh against the scope of the enquiry. 5. The petitioner was not prejudiced by the fact that he was not given a personal hearing, but an oral enquiry was held. 6. The petitioner was not prejudiced by the fact that two of the witnesses were not produced for cross-examination and that a fresh witness was examined without previous notice to him. 7. The petitioner's supplementary explanations were not taken into consideration at the time of imposing the punishment, as they had nothing to do with the show-cause notice. 8. The fact that the petitioner's brother was discharged on a complaint under Section 162 I. P. C. was not relevant to the administrative enquiry held by a Judge of the High Court. 9. The suspension imposed by the High Court was not by way of a penalty, but was an order pending an enquiry.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to hold an enquiry into the conduct of the petitioner, who was an Assistant Sessions Judge? 2. Whether the proviso to Rule 4 (1) (a) of the Andhra Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1953, which excludes judicial officers from the purview of the Tribunal, also excludes them from the operation of Rule 5, which deals with the reference of cases to the Tribunal or to a Court of law? 3. Whether the High Court was competent to make an enquiry against the petitioner, who was a District Judge within the meaning of Article 236 of the Constitution? 4. Whether the petitioner was prejudiced by the fact that the 6th witness was not called in for his cross-examination and that the other five witnesses who were to have been cross-examined, have been examined afresh against the scope of the enquiry? 5. Whether the petitioner was prejudiced by the fact that he was not given a personal hearing, but an oral enquiry was held? 6. Whether the petitioner was prejudiced by the fact that two of the witnesses were not produced for cross-examination and that a fresh witness was examined without previous notice to him? 7. Whether the petitioner's supplementary explanations were taken into consideration at the time of imposing the punishment? 8. Whether the fact that the petitioner's brother was discharged on a complaint under Section 162 I. P. C. was relevant to the administrative enquiry held by a Judge of the High Court? 9. Whether the suspension imposed by the High Court was by way of a penalty?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court has jurisdiction to hold an enquiry into the conduct of judicial officers, and to determine provisionally the punishment which should be imposed upon them prior to their being afforded a reasonable opportunity of showing cause, under Article 311 of the Constitution. 2. The proviso to Rule 4 (1) (a) of the Andhra Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1953, which excludes judicial officers from the purview of the Tribunal, also excludes them from the operation of Rule 5, which deals with the reference of cases to the Tribunal or to a Court of law. 3. The High Court is competent to make an enquiry against a District Judge within the meaning of Article 236 of the Constitution. 4. The petitioner was not prejudiced by the fact that the 6th witness was not called in for his cross-examination and that the other five witnesses who were to have been cross-examined, have been examined afresh against the scope of the enquiry. 5. The petitioner was not prejudiced by the fact that he was not given a personal hearing, but an oral enquiry was held. 6. The petitioner was not prejudiced by the fact that two of the witnesses were not produced for cross-examination and that a fresh witness was examined without previous notice to him. 7. The petitioner's supplementary explanations were not taken into consideration at the time of imposing the punishment, as they had nothing to do with the show-cause notice. 8. The fact that the petitioner's brother was discharged on a complaint under Section 162 I. P. C. was not relevant to the administrative enquiry held by a Judge of the High Court. 9. The suspension imposed by the High Court was not by way of a penalty, but was an order pending an enquiry.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed with costs.
( 2 ) THE petitioner was recruited to the Madras Judicial Service as a District Munsif in 1935 and in 1949 he was promoted to the office of the Subordinate Judge and pasted at Masulipatam on 19-6-1950. The charge of bribery levelled against him was with respect to two connected suits tried by him, O. S. No. 95 of 1946 and O. S. No. 24 of 1949. On 27-7-1950, the trial having concluded, arguments were heard and judgment was reserved. On 10-8-1950, petitions were filed to re-hear the cases, which were allowed and, after hearing the parties, the cases were again reserved for judgment. Lingam Sitharama Rao, the 5th defendant In both the suits, thereafter filed a petition in the High Court of Madras for transferring the suits to another court on the ground that the petitioner was trying through his brother, Basha, to obtain a bribe from the parties. The High Court passed an order staying the delivery of the judgment in those suits and the suits themselves were eventually transferred to the Sub Court, Gudivada, and the petitioner was also transferred on 16-9-1950, to the Sub Court at Amalapuram in East Godavari District, after which the High Court started investigation into the allegations made in the affidavit and the stay petition. After the; enquiries were made and the report was received, a charge was framed against him on 2-4-1953, in the following terms: "that you in or about August 1950 being at that time Additional sub. Judge, Masutipatam entered into a conspiracy with your brother Md. Rasuddin alias Basha for the purpose of obtaining a bribe from the parties in O. S, Nos. 24/49 and 95/46 on the file of your Court, and that, in pursuance of the conspiracy, the said Md. Rasuddin at Vijayawada attempted between 11-8-1950 and 13-8-1950 to obtain a bribe from Lingam Satyanarayana Rao and his son Lingam Seetarama Rao (the 5th defendant in both the above suits ). You are hereby required within 15 days of the receipt by you of this proceeding (i) to submit written statement of your defence and to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against you in respect of the above charge, and (if) to state whether you desire an oral enquiry to be held or only to be heard in person. " This charge was denied by the petitioner in his letter dated 27-4-53 wherein he stated that in the absence of a narration of facts on proof of which this serious charge against him could be sustained, he could only deny the charge and the circumstances appearing against him. He accordingly requested for the supply of information so That he might submit a full and satisfactory explanation. On the information being supplied to him, he filed a detailed written statement on 22-6-1953.
( 3 ) THE High Court had, during this period also received complaints that the petitioner had committed serious irregularities in the discharge of his duties in the Subordinate Court, Amalapuram, to the effect that he had delayed delivering judgments in the suits and appeals for an unreasonable time, that he had made false returns to the District Court and to cover his defaults, he had altered the records of the Court so as to be consistent with those returns -. Charges were framed with respect to these irregularities also on 15-1-1953 and further charges relating to the same matter were framed on 6-5-1953. With reference to these, the petitioner furnished replies on 22-6-1953. These charges, both relating to the bribery and irregularities in official duties, were enquired into by one of the Honble Judges of the High Court of Madras who he
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
