Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
K.SUBBA RAO,JAGAN MOHAN REDDY, JJ.
Dr. G. Valayya Pantulu
Versus
Government of Andhra (Now Andhra Pradesh)
Writ Petal. No. 74 of 1955
Decided On : 13-08-1957
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ART. 311 - DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE - REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY - NON-EXAMINATION OF WITNESS AND NON-PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENT - WHEN VITIATES PROCEEDINGS - MADRAS CIVIL SERVICES (DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS TRIBUNAL) RULES, R. 8(A) - NON-RECORDING OF REASONS FOR NOT SUMMONING WITNESS - EFFECT - MARKING OF DOCUMENTS BEHIND THE BACK OF THE PETITIONER - EFFECT - RELIANCE ON DOCUMENTS NOT DISCLOSED TO THE PARTY - EFFECT - ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD - MEANING OF - PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED IN CASES OF CORRUPTION - MADRAS CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES, R. 17(B) - DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO RULES - SHOW CAUSE NOTICE - REQUIREMENTS OF - ANDHRA STATE ACT, 1953, S. 58 - EFFECT OF - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ART. 320(3)(C) - CONSULTATION WITH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION - WHEN NECESSARY - REGULATION 18 DATED 26-12-1950 - EFFECT OF - REGULATION 19-A DATED 14-4-1956 - EFFECT OF.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Health Officer, Class I, was dismissed from service by the Government of Andhra Pradesh on the basis of a report submitted by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, which had been appointed to inquire into certain charges of corruption against him. The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal on various grounds, including the non-examination of a material witness and the non-production of an important document, the non-recording of reasons for not summoning a witness, the marking of documents behind his back, the reliance on documents not disclosed to him, errors apparent on the face of the record, the failure to follow the prescribed procedure in cases of corruption, the inadequacy of the show cause notice, the lack of authority of the Andhra Government to dismiss him, and the failure to consult the Public Service Commission before dismissing him.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the non-examination of the witness and the non-production of the document did not vitiate the proceedings as they were not germane to the charge and the petitioner was not prejudiced by their non-production. The Court also held that the failure to record reasons for not summoning the witness was not a sufficient ground for quashing the order as the petitioner was not prejudiced by such failure. The Court further held that the marking of documents behind the back of the petitioner did not prejudice him as he was aware of the documents relied upon during the trial. The Court also held that the reliance on documents not disclosed to the petitioner was illegal and could have vitiated the order, but in the present case, the petitioner was not prejudiced by such reliance. The Court also held that there were no errors apparent on the face of the record. The Court further held that the procedure followed in the case was in accordance with the prescribed procedure for cases of corruption and gave the petitioner every opportunity to prove his innocence. The Court also held that the show cause notice was in accordance with law and the petitioner was not prejudiced by any irregularities in the notice. The Court also held that the Andhra Government had the authority to dismiss the petitioner as the proceedings were transferred to it under Section 58 of the Andhra State Act, 1953. Finally, the Court held that the failure to consult the Public Service Commission before dismissing the petitioner was a violation of the constitutional guarantee under Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution of India, but the Governor's order was not answerable to the Court due to Article 361 of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether the non-examination of a material witness and the non-production of an important document vitiated the proceedings. 2. Whether the non-recording of reasons for not summoning a witness was a sufficient ground for quashing the order. 3. Whether the marking of documents behind the back of the petitioner prejudiced him. 4. Whether the reliance on documents not disclosed to the petitioner was illegal and could have vitiated the order. 5. Whether there were any errors apparent on the face of the record. 6. Whether the procedure followed in the case was in accordance with the prescribed procedure for cases of corruption and gave the petitioner every opportunity to prove his innocence. 7. Whether the show cause notice was in accordance with law and the petitioner was prejudiced by any irregularities in the notice. 8. Whether the Andhra Government had the authority to dismiss the petitioner. 9. Whether the failure to consult the Public Service Commission before dismissing the petitioner was a violation of the constitutional guarantee under Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The non-examination of a witness and the non-production of a document will not vitiate the proceedings if they are not germane to the charge and the petitioner is not prejudiced by their non-production. 2. The failure to record reasons for not summoning a witness is not a sufficient ground for quashing the order if the petitioner is not prejudiced by such failure. 3. The marking of documents behind the back of the petitioner will not prejudice him if he is aware of the documents relied upon during the trial. 4. The reliance on documents not disclosed to the petitioner is illegal and could have vitiated the order, but if the petitioner is not prejudiced by such reliance, the order will not be quashed. 5. There are no errors apparent on the face of the record if the findings are not based on suspicion but on the evidence adduced in the case. 6. The procedure followed in the case is in accordance with the prescribed procedure for cases of corruption and gives the petitioner every opportunity to prove his innocence if it is more elaborate and gives the petitioner a more adequate opportunity to prove his innocence than he could possibly hope under the procedure prescribed for charges other than corruption. 7. The show cause notice is in accordance with law and the petitioner is not prejudiced by any irregularities in the notice if it complies with the requirements of law and the petitioner understands the implications of the notice. 8. The Andhra Government has the authority to dismiss the petitioner if the proceedings were transferred to it under Section 58 of the Andhra State Act, 1953. 9. The failure to consult the Public Service Commission before dismissing the petitioner is a violation of the constitutional guarantee under Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution of India, but the Governor's order is not answerable to the Court due to Article 361 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs.
K. SUBBA RAO, C.J. :-
This is an application under Art.226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Government dismissing the petitioner from service.
2 The petitioner was employed by the Madras State as Health Officer, Class I. In April, 1951, he was posted as District Health Officer, Guntur. On the basis of many complaints made against him, the Government directed the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings to make an enquiry about his conduct. The Tribunal framed the following seven charges :
"1. That actuated by corrupt motives and in abuse of your position, you fraudulently claimed and drew travelling allowance for yourself and the members of your family for the journey from Visakhapatnam to Guntur on the 16th and 17th of May 1951, as if you all travelled by II class, while in fact, one of you all travelled by II Class.
2. That actuated by corrupt motives, you claimed and drew T. A. for your journey on 15-6-1951 from Guntur to Waltair and for the return journey from Waltair to Guntur by deliberately furnishing false certificates and that, for the entire journey from Guntur to Visakhapatnam, you travelled by II Class and that the return journey was performed on 17-6-51 and 18-6-51 while in fact for a part of the forward journey i.e., from Guntur to Bezwada you travelled by inter class and the return journey was not performed on the 17th and 18th June, 1951.
3. That, actuated by corrupt motives you fraudulently claimed and drew full mileage for your journeys on the dates mentioned hereunder performed in a Government Jeep :
12-9-51 Tenali Pedapalem Tenali. 37 miles.
13-9-51 Tenali Mopatu Amrathalur Mulpur Tenali Bhattiprole Tenali 78 miles.
14-9-51 Tenali Revendrapadu Emani Kollipatta Tenali Sangamjagarlamudi Chebrole Guntur 75 miles.
15-9-51 Guntur Kosur Guntur 68 miles.
4. That you received through your camp clerk, Sri P. Kalidas Rs. 75/- as illegal gratification from Sri Aramanda Kotayya, a mill owner of Peddagadalavarru village, in about August 1951 for sending a report against Sri Katragadda Subba Rao and Dasari Bhagavendam, Mill owners, whose mill worked without the necessary licence, and later when the District Supply Officer on receipt of your report asked some information you did not furnish the information required and lodged the file, probably in consideration of some illegal gratification received from the latter mill owners.
5. That actuated by corrupt motive and in abuse of your position, you recommended the issue of licence to Sri Kolla China Veeraiah of Vinjampad for the construction of a rice mill in S. No. 625-1 of the aforesaid village.
6. That in abuse of your position you obtained supply of rice, ghee, milk, eggs, wheat flour, fuel and other articles worth Rs. 6-4-0 through Sri K. Narasimha Rao, Malaria Sanitary Inspector, Repalle on the night of 15-8-1951, when you camped at Repalle with your camp clerk Sri P. Kalidas and your peon, Sadda Kotaiah and have not paid the amount in spite of demand.
7. That actuated by discreditable motives and in abuse of your position, you showed undue interest in Srimathi Nagarattamma and her husband Sri S Sangeeta Rao and appointed her as mid-wife in the Maternity and Child Welfare Centre, Parchur and as Sanitary Inspector, Anti-Malarial Scheme, Chira respectively".
3. A copy of the charges was served on the petitioner and he was asked to file a list of witnesses whom he wished to examine and also a list of documents which he wished to exhibit so as to enable the Tribunal to secure the presence of the witnesses and the production of the document at the time of the hearing. He was also informed that he might engage a counsel at his cost to defend him in the enquiry. The petitioner filed a list of 28 witnesses to be summoned and produced at the enquiry. P. Ws. 1 to 9 were examined for the department and D. Ws. 1 to 24 were examined for the petitioner.
Exs. P-1 to P-20 were marked for the Department and Exs. D-1 to D-11 (b) were m
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
