Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : MOHAMMED AHMED ANSARI, P.CHANDRA REDDY
B.S.Prakasa Rao - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P. represented by Secretary, Public Works Dept - Respondent
Decided On : 12-10-58
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - REMOVAL FROM SERVICE - NOTICE - SUFFICIENCY - MADRAS CIVIL SERVICES (DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1951, R. 8 (b).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Public Works Department officer, was removed from service after a disciplinary inquiry found him guilty of accepting illegal gratification and colluding with certain landowners to the detriment of others. The petitioner challenged the order of removal, arguing that the Tribunal's findings were based on insufficient evidence and that the Government had not properly communicated its provisional conclusions regarding the penalty to be imposed.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that it could not review the Tribunal's findings of fact and that the Government had not violated the Madras Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules by failing to state in the second notice that it had accepted the Tribunal's findings.
Issues: 1. Whether the Tribunal's findings of fact were based on sufficient evidence. 2. Whether the Government had properly communicated its provisional conclusions regarding the penalty to be imposed.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that it could not review the Tribunal's findings of fact, as this was a matter for the Tribunal to decide. 2. The court held that the Government was not required to state in the second notice that it had accepted the Tribunal's findings, as this was not required by the Madras Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and upheld the order of removal.
( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order of the Government removing the petitioner from service. The petitioner entered Public Works Department as an Officer in or about the year 1940. When he was the Section Officer of Bezawada circle he was also in charge of the Irrigation Works in the circle including those of Manimeswaram in Krishna District. During that period, complaints were received against him from the villagers of Manirneswaram which is on the lower side of the Arthmur channel. After a preliminary inquiry into the allegations by the proper Superintending Engineer the matter was referred to Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal. The Tribunal framed as many as six charges, enumerated below, and called upon the petitioner to furnish his explanation thereto. " (1) That you, in or about July, 1950, demanded and received Rs. 100/- from Sri D. China Nagayya of Manimeswaram, as illegal gratification, for allowing water to the fields of the riots of the said villages. (2) That you, in or about the first week of August 1950, when Sri A. Mallikarjuna Rao and N. Kotayya of Manimeswaram met you on behalf of the villagers and requested you to open the drop once again and allow water to their fields, at least for a few days as the standing crops were withering, demanded payment of an additional sum of Rs. 100. 00 as illegal gratification. (3) That you demanded and received Rs. 70. 00 in or about July, 1949 and another sum of Rs. 70. 00 in or about July 1950 as illegal gratification from Mutyala Venkaiah of China Pandureke for allowing water to the fields of the riots of the village from the new Arthamur Channel. (4) That you demanded and received Rs. 50. 00 in or about July 1949 and another sum of Rs. 50. 00 in or about July, 1950, as illegal gratification from Sri Kunapareddy Rama Rao of Malleswaram village for allowing water to the fields of the riots of Malleswaram. (5) That you demanded and received Rs. 80. 00 during 1949 and another sum of Rs. 100. 00 during 1950 as illegal gratification from Kunapareddi Rajulu of Munjalur, for allowing water to the fields of the riots of his village. (6) That you in or about July, 1950, actuated by corrupt motive, colluded with the riots owning lands above the Arthamur Channel drop and permitted them to make as many as 14 breaches above drop to the detriment of the lands in the lower reach.
( 2 ) ON receipt of the explanation, an inquiry was held by the Tribunal in the presence of the petitioner. Ultimately the Tribunal reached the conclusion that charges Nos. 1, 2 and 6 were substantiated. With these conclusions, it submitted a report to the Government on 1-4-1952 with a recommendation that the Government servant might be removed from service. The Government of Madras sent a copy of the report of the Tribunal to the petitioner and directed him to show cause within one month of the receipt of that memorandum why the penalty of removal should not be imposed upon him. He was also told that if he wanted he could peruse the connected records at the office of the Tribunal, take notes or copies thereof etc, Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his explanation. Having considered his explanation and the attendant circumstances and the recommendation of the Tribunal the Government directed that the petitioner should be removed from service forthwith. It is this order that is sought to be quashed by the petitioner.
( 3 ) TWO points are raised by Sri Kuppuswami in support of this petition. (1) The Tribunal having referred to several discrepancies in, the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution should not have accepted it and should have given the benefit of doubt to his client. (2) There was an infraction of the provisions of Rule 8 (b) of the Madras Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rides in that the Government did not state specifically in the second notice that they have accepted the findings of the Tribunal. We f
AI
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
