Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : BHIMASANKARAM, K.SUBBA RAO
M.V.JOGARAO - Appellant
Versus
State OF MADRAS (NOW ANDHRA) REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, KURNOOI - Respondent
Decided On : 08-17-56
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 311 - DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE - REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY - NOTICE - SCOPE - ENQUIRY - JOINT TRIAL - RULES GOVERNING DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY - VIOLATION - EFFECT - CLASSIFICATION - REASONABLENESS - ARTICLE 14.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a permanent Tahsildar, was dismissed from service by the Government after an enquiry by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings. The appellant challenged the order of dismissal on the ground that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him, that the enquiry was vitiated by the joint trial of the appellant along with others, that the rules governing departmental enquiry were violated, and that the classification made under Rule 5(b) of the Madras Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1948, was unreasonable and offended Article 14 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the notice issued to the appellant was in accordance with the terms of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and that the appellant was given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him. The Court also held that the joint trial of the appellant along with others did not prejudice the appellant and that the rules governing departmental enquiry were not violated. The Court further held that the classification made under Rule 5(b) of the Madras Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1948, was reasonable and did not offend Article 14 of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant was given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him? 2. Whether the joint trial of the appellant along with others prejudiced the appellant? 3. Whether the rules governing departmental enquiry were violated? 4. Whether the classification made under Rule 5(b) of the Madras Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1948, was unreasonable and offended Article 14 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The scope of the notice under Article 311 of the Constitution of India is to inform the civil servant of the action proposed to be taken against him and to give him an opportunity to show cause against that action. The notice should not only give the punishment proposed to be inflicted on the civil servant but also the reasons for coming to that conclusion. 2. A joint trial of a civil servant along with others does not necessarily prejudice the civil servant. The Court has to examine the entire record to ascertain whether the civil servant was prejudiced by the joint trial. 3. The rules governing departmental enquiry are not the same as the rules governing criminal trials. The Tribunal conducting disciplinary proceedings is not a court and the technical rules governing criminal trials do not apply to departmental enquiries. 4. A classification is reasonable if it rests on differences pertinent to the subject in respect of which classification is made. The classification made under Rule 5(b) of the Madras Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1948, was based on differences germane to the object to be achieved, namely, to cleanse the administrative machinery.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
( 2 ) THE appellant was a permanent Tahsildar of Visakhapatnam District. It was brough to the notice of the Government by appropriate departments that a pritma facie case of corruption was made out against him. The matter was in due course entrusted to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings for enquiry. The allegations against the appellant were that when he was working as Special Tahsildar for xoans, he took illegal gratifications in 9 instances from the applicants lor loins of the village of Narava and its hamlets and in four instances from the applicants of the village of Kanithi. The Tribunal framed charges and held an elaborate enquiry. The enquiry was held along with that of another Government servant one Thakoor jee who was during the crucial period the Special Revenue Inspector for Loans in the same place. The Tribunal held that five acts of corruption had been made out against the appellant and it recommended to the Government that the appellanc should be dismissed from service, On the receipt of the report, on 7th January, 1953, the Government of Madras issued the following notice to the appellant. We shall read the entire notice as the main argument was based on its terms. It runs:"government of Madras. Revenue Department. Memorandum No. 53596 G/52-7 dated 7th January 1953. Sub:public Servants (Visakhapatnam) Sri M. V. Jogaraodepartmental enquiry no. 3 of 1952. Ref:from the Chairman, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, letter No. 2834/62 dated 29-7-1952. A Copy of the report of the Tribunal for Disciplinary proceedings on the subject mentioned above is communicated to Sri M. V. Jogarao, formerly sptcial tahsildar for loans, Visakhapatnam. The Government agree with the findings of the Tribunal in respect of the charges as well as its recommendation, regarding the punishment and have arrived at a provisional conclusion that the accused officer should be dismissed from service. Sri M. V. Jogarao is accordingly directed to show cause within one month from the date of receipt of this memo why he should not be dismissed from service. , 2. The available records relating to the case have been sent to the office of the Tribunal for Disciplinary proceedings. Sri M. V. Jogarao is informed that he may peruse the records and take copies of notes thereof if required, at that office. No extension of time beyond the limit specified in para 1 above will, however be granted under any circumstances. "
( 3 ) PURSUANT to the notice, the appellant submitted written explanation challenging the validity of the Tribunal s findings and also on the quantum of punishment proposed to be inflicted. He pointed out in his explanation that the rinding of the tribunal was based on no evidence and thac the Tribunal had violated statutory rules. The Government thereafter made a final order on 26th June 1953 dismissing him from service. In that order, after giving a brief history of the case and stages of the inquiry, the Government stated thus : the Government have further examined the records of enquiry in the light of the final written representations of the accused officers. They see no reason to revise their provisional conclusions referred to in para 3 above. They accordingly confirm that conclusion in respect of the punishment to be imposed on the delinquents and direct that Sri M. V. Jogarao, Sri M. A. Rahim and Sri S. Thakoorjee be dismissed from service with effect from the dates on which they were placed under suspension. " the appellant filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to. quash that order. Satyanarayana Raju J. dismissed it by his order dated 4th february 1955. Mr. Venkatesam, the learned c
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
