Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SUBBA RAO,ANSARI, JJ.
The State of Andhra (now Andhra Pradesh)
Versus
T. Ramayya Suri
Writ Appeal No. 19 of 1956 against order of Umamaheswaram J. in Writ Petition No. 817 of 1952
Decided On : 18-01-1957
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - GOVERNMENT'S POWER TO REVIEW FINDINGS - SCOPE OF REVIEW - OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE - ESSENTIALITY - CORRUPTION - DEFINITION UNDER RULES - GOVERNMENT'S POWER TO REFER OTHER CASES.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a Government employee, was dismissed from service after a Tribunal found him guilty of misconduct. The Government accepted the Tribunal's findings and imposed the penalty of dismissal. The respondent challenged the order of dismissal, arguing that the Government had no power to differ from the Tribunal's findings and that he was not given an opportunity to show cause against the penalty.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Government has the power to review the findings of the Tribunal and that the respondent was not given an opportunity to show cause against the penalty. The Court quashed the order of dismissal and directed the Government to consider the appropriate punishment to be imposed on the respondent on the basis of the findings on the charges.
Issues: 1. Whether the Government has the power to review the findings of the Tribunal. 2. Whether the respondent was given an opportunity to show cause against the penalty.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Government has the power to review the findings of the Tribunal because: a. The findings and recommendations of the Tribunal are not final and can be reviewed by the Government before final orders are made. b. The officer can question the correctness of the findings in showing cause against the penalty proposed to be inflicted on him. c. The Government is the ultimate authority to decide both the relevant questions, whether the charges had been proved, and if the charges had been proved, what the punishment should be. 2. The Court held that the respondent was not given an opportunity to show cause against the penalty because: a. The Government did not disclose to the respondent one of the reasons, namely, that it did not agree with the Tribunal in regard to its finding on the 3rd charge before passing final orders. b. The authority should necessarily in its order requiring the civil servant to show cause give not only the punishment proposed to be inflicted on him but also the reasons for coming to that conclusion.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the order of dismissal and directed the Government to consider the appropriate punishment to be imposed on the respondent on the basis of the findings on the charges.
SUBBA RAO, C.J. :- This is an appeal against the Order of our learned brother Umamaheswaram, J., in Writ Petition No. 817 of 1952 quashing the Order of the Government dismissing the respondent from service.
2. The respondent was an employee of the State of Madras and had put in 32 years of service. In 1947, he was Taluk Supply Officer, Vijayawada. For his alleged misconduct during that period, after making the necessary investigation through the C. I. D. the Government referred his case to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings under R. 5 of the Madras Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1948. The said Tribunal framed the following four charges :
"Charge No. 1 .- That you, actuated by corrupt motive, on or about 31st January, 1947, attempted to mislead Sri Nageswararao, Sub-Inspector of Police, Counter-blackmarketing Unit, Vijayawada in regard to Crime No. 14 of 1947, S. 7 (1) of Act (XXV of 1946), by making a false representation that Sri Konakalla Suryanarayana of Velpur, whose paddy of about 52 bags had been seized on or about 27th January, 1947, while being transported from Krishna District to Guntur District committed no offence by such transport. Charge No. 2 .- That you, actuated by corrupt motive, got up and issued an ante-dated permit with date 27th January, 1947, in favour of the accused in Crime No. 15 of 1947 who had been charged for illicit transport of about 26 bags of paddy by boat to Guntur with a view to enable him to escape prosecution and get back the paddy seized on 29th January, 1947 at Guntupalli ferry.
Charge No. 3 .- That you, in spite of having seized 10 bags of paddy as being illicitly transported from Kolavenue to Kankipadu and sent a report to the Kankipadu Police Station, where a case under Ss. 7 and 8 of Act (XXIV of 1946)-Crime No. 50 of 1947 was registered, actuated by corrupt motive, sent a note to the Police Station later, stating that the accused had applied earlier for hulling permit, that the permit has since been issued and that the seized paddy may be returned, while, in fact, the accused had made no application for a hulling permit earlier.
Charge No. 4 .- That you, actuated by corrupt motive, got up and issued two ante-dated permits with date 27th January, 1947, in favour of Syed Fasivullah and Mahaboob Unnissa of Vijayawada, whose lands were being cultivated by Mushuri Raghaviah of Perakalapudi, Guntur district, who was being proceeded with for illicit transport of about 45 bags of paddy by boat from Guntupalli of Krishna District to Guntur District, with a view to avert the accused from prosecution and help them to get back the seized paddy."
3. The Tribunal, after making the necessary enquiry in the manner provided by the rules, held that charges Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were made out. In regard to Charge No. 3, the Tribunal found that the officer out of fear or regard for prominent Congressmen went out of the way and asked the Sub-Inspector to release the paddy and that he was not actuated by any corrupt motive, that is to say, that he received no monetary consideration for the action taken by him. He held that the charge was made out to the limited extent. On the basis of these findings, the Tribunal recommended for the dismissal of the respondent from service. The Government provisionally accepted the findings of the Tribunal that Charges Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were proved. It also considered that Charge No. 3 was also fully proved. As regards the punishment, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Tribunal, which was agreed to by the Board of Revenue, that the respondent should be dismissed from service. On 27th December, 1950, the Government of Madras issued the following notice to the respondent.
"A copy of the report of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings on the subject mentioned above is communicated to Sri T. Ramayya Suri, formerly Taluk Supply Officer, Vijayawada, Krishna District. He is directed to show cause within one month from the date of re
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
