Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.SUBBA RAO, P.SATYANARAYANA RAJU
Mohd.Ghouse - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 11-19-54
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 235 - CONTROL OVER SUBORDINATE COURTS - CONDITIONS OF SERVICE - MEANING - POWER OF HIGH COURT TO TAKE DISCIPLINARY ACTION - RULE PROVIDING FOR ENQUIRY BY TRIBUNAL - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Subordinate Judge, was placed under suspension by the High Court on charges of bribery. He challenged the order on the ground that, after the Andhra Civil Service (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1953 (Andhra Rules) came into force, the High Court had no power to continue disciplinary proceedings against him and that such power was vested only in the Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Andhra Rules did not make any conscious departure from the Madras Rules and that the ambiguity, if any, that crept into the new Rules would disappear if the entire scheme of the rules and the wording used is looked at from the correct perspective. The Court further held that the proviso to Rule 4 (2) of the Andhra Rules, which excluded cases arising in the Judicial Department from the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, should be read as a proviso to both sub-rules of Rule 4 and that, therefore, the High Court had the power to conduct disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.
Issues: 1. Whether the Andhra Rules made any departure from the Madras Rules and, if so, what was the effect of such departure? 2. Whether the proviso to Rule 4 (2) of the Andhra Rules, which excluded cases arising in the Judicial Department from the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, should be read as a proviso to both sub-rules of Rule 4? 3. Whether the High Court had the power to conduct disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Andhra Rules did not make any conscious departure from the Madras Rules and that the ambiguity, if any, that crept into the new Rules would disappear if the entire scheme of the rules and the wording used is looked at from the correct perspective. 2. The Court held that the proviso to Rule 4 (2) of the Andhra Rules, which excluded cases arising in the Judicial Department from the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, should be read as a proviso to both sub-rules of Rule 4. 3. The Court held that the High Court had the power to conduct disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition and upheld the order of the High Court placing the petitioner under suspension.
( 2 ) THE petitioner, Mohammed Ghouse, entered the Madras Judicial Service as a District Munsif in the year 1935 and was promoted to the Office of the Subordinate Judge in September 1949. On the formation of the Andhra State on 1. 10. 1953. he became a member of the Andhra State Judicial Service. The High Court of Madras took disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on a charge of bribery. A Judge of the High Court was specially appointed to enquire into the allegations. The learned Judge conducted the enquiry at Vijayawada on 14. 9. 1953 and 15. 9. 1953 and continued the enquiry on 17. 9. 1953 and 18. 9. 1953 at Rajamundry and subsequently on 20. 10. 1953 at Madras. After the enquiry, the High Court issued an order placing the petitioner under suspension. The order was duly served on the petitioner on 30. 1. 1954. The petitioner seeks to get the order quashed on various grounds given in thepetition.
( 3 ) MR. Nambiar, learned counsel for the petitioner,contended, that the High Court has no power to continue disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner after the Andhra Civil Service (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Andhra Rules) came into force on 1. 10. 1953, and that, thereafter, the said power was vested only the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings. The learned Advocate General replied by stating that the said rules were neither intended nor had the effect of removing the pre-existing jurisdiction from the High Court and transferring it to the Tribunal and that, even if that was the effect, it would be ultra vires of the rule-making power of the Government.
( 4 ) THE first question, therefore, is whether the Andhra Rules made any departure from those obtaining in Madras. The Madras and the Andhra Rules may be placed in juxtaposition to apprecite the difference between the two sets of rules. _____________________________________________________________________________________madras CIVIL SERVICES (DISCIPLINARY ANDHRA CIVIL SERVICES (DISCIPLINARYPROCEEDINGS TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1948 1st PROCEEDINGS TRIBUNAL) RULES, 19/01/1949 Kurnool, 2 2/10/1953. _____________________________________________________________________________________in exrcise of the powers conferred by S. 241 In exercise of the powers conferred by the Proviso (1) (b) and 2 (b) of the Government of India to Art. 309 of the Constitution on India the Governoract, 1935, and of all other powers hereunto of the Andhra State hereby makes the following enabling. His Excellency The Governor of rules. Madras hereby makes the following Rules: RULES RULES1 (a) These rules may be called the Madrascivil1 (a) These rules may be called the Andhra Civil Service (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal)Service (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1948rules 1953. (b) They shall come into force on 1st January (b) The shall be deemed to have come into force no1949. the 1/10/1953. (c) They shall apply to all Government servants (c) They shall apply to all Officers under the rule-under the adminstrative control of the Government. making control of the State Government4. The Government may, subject to the provisions4. (1) The Government shall, subject to the rule 5, of refer to the Tribunal --provisions of rule 5, refer the following cases to thetribunal namely ; (a) Cases relating to Government servants on a (a) Cases relating to Government servants on a monthly salary of Rs. 150. 00 and above, in respect monthly salary of Rs. 150. 00 and above in respectof matters involving corruption on the part of such of matters involving corruption on the part of suchgovernment servants in the discharge of their Government servants in the dischar
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
