Appeal No 356 of 1962
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 13 1960 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No 46 of 196O AV Viswanatha Sastri B Parthasarthi and Rvasudev Pillai for the appellant
D Narsaraju Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh K R Choudhri and P D Menon for the respondents
January 22
The judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH J
This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated December 13 1960 dismissing Writ Petition No 46 of 1960
The petitioner is the appellant before us
The respondents to this appeal are the Government of Andhra 673 Pradesh and the Chairman of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings Andhra Pradesh
The appellant was a servant in the Hyderabad Revenue Service and in 1956 was holding the post of Deputy Secretary to the Government in the Public Works Department
On a report submitted by the CID the Government of Andhra Pradesh ordered an inquiry under section 4 of the Hyderabad Public Servants Tribunal of Enquiry Act 1950 Hyderabad Act No XXIII of 1950 by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings
The Tribunal enquired into 19 charges and submitted its report on July 11 1959
The Tribunal found 4 charges proved and in view of the first charge which involved acceptance of a bribe and charge No 14 which related to tampering with official records the Tribunal recommended that the appellant be dismissed from service
After due notice to the appellant the Government of Andhra Pradesh ordered the dismissal of the appellant
The appellant thereupon moved a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution requesting that the order passed by Government be quashed
The appellant inter alia contended that under the Hyderabad Public Servants Tribunal of Enquiry Act 1950 the Tribunal could only consist of persons who were judicial officers employed as Sessions judges in the territory of India for a period of not less than 3 years
He contended that though the enquiry had properly commenced before Mr R Bhaskara Rao who func tioned as the Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal up to April 19 1959 he was succeeded by Mr M Sriramamurthy who was not qualified but who heard the arguments and submitted the report He contended that Mr Sriramamurthy had not held the office of a Sessions judge for three years
The only question which was considered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court was whether in the circumstances Mr Sriramamurthy was disqualified to act as the Tribunal
The High Court held that in view of the provisions of the States Reorganisation Act and 674 the Notification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh on November 1 1956 by which the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings in Andhra Pradesh was named as the authority to function under the Hyderabad Public Servants Tribunal of Enquiry Act 1950 Mr Sriramamurthy was competent to exercise functions exercisable under the Hyderabad Act
The High Court accordingly dismissed the petition
It is contended by Mr Vishwanath Sastri that the appointment of Mr Sriramamurthy was incompetent because he was not qualified to act as the Tribunal of Enquiry under the Hyderabad Act
We are concerned with the Hyderabad Act and the Act No XXXVII of 1956
The relevant provisions of the first Act are sections 3 and 4 and they may now be seen
Section 3 of the Hyderabad Public Servants Tribunal of Enquiry Act 1950 in so far as it is material read as follows 3
1 A Tribunal consisting of one or more members shall be constituted for the purpose of this Act
2 Every member of the Tribunal shall be a judicial officer who has been employed as a Sessions judge in the territory of India for a period of not less than three years      Section 4 read as follows 4
Government may and in such cases if any
as may be prescribed shall refer to the Tribunal for enquiry and report any case involving an allegation of misconduct or inefficiency or disloyalty on the part of a public servant
 675 The corresponding provisions in the State of Andhra before the formation of the State of Andhra Pradesh were the
Andhra Civil Services Disciplinary Tribunal Rules 1953 which were made under the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution
Under those Rules which came into force on October 1 1953 it was provided  3
a The Tribunal shall consist of one judicial officer of the status of District and Sessions judge
 Proviso omitted It is admitted that Mr M Sriramamurthi held the qualification under this Rule
On November 1 1956 the State of Andhra Pradesh was formed by the amalgamation among others of portions of Hyderabad State with the State of Andhra
The contemplating the existence of diverse laws on the same subject in the integrated units provided for the conflict of laws
Under section 115 which related to services it was provided that every person who immediately before the appointed day was serving in connection with the affairs of an existing State parts of whose territories were transferred to another State would from that date provisionally continue to serve in connection with the affairs of the successor State to that existing State unless he was required to serve provisionally in Connection with the affairs of any other successor State
Under this section the appellant automatically began to serve the successor State namely the State of Andhra Pradesh
Section 120 gave the power to the State Government to adapt laws
It provided that the Government of the succeeding State could make adaptations and modifications of the law of an existing State whether by way of repeal or amendment as may be necessary or expedient and after 676 such adaptations every such law was to have effect until altered repealed or amended by a competent Legislature or other competent authority
Section 121 gave a special power to Courts Tribunals and authorities to construe the laws where no provision or insufficient provision has been made for the adaptation of a law to facilitate the application of the law in relation to any State newly formed though without affecting the substance of the matter
Section 122 then provided as follows 122
The Central Government as respects any State and the State Government as respects any new State or any transferred territory
may by notification in the Official Gazette specify the authority officer or person who as from the appointed day shall be competent to exercise such functions exercisable under any law in force on that day as may be mentioned in that notification and such law shall have effect accordingly
 Finally section 127 read as follows 127
The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law
 It will therefore be seen that the applies even if it is inconsistent with anything in the Hyderabad Public Servants Tribunal of Enquiry Act 1950
By reason of section 127 and the power granted by section 122 it was competent to the Government of Andhra Pradesh to name an authority under the Hyderabad Act even though that authority might not have been qualified under the latter Act
The concluding words of section 122 shall be competent to exercise such functions exercisable under any law in force on that day as may be mentioned in that notification and such law 611 shall have effect accordingly show that on the notification issuing under section 122 the existing law itself is to have effect in a different manner
The argument of Mr Vishwanath Sastri that before the Hyderabad Act could be departed from it had to be adapted under section 120 by substituting an authority different from that named in section 3 therefore might have been effective if section 122 had not concluded in the manner indicated above
Section 122 by its very terms makes the Hyderabad Act speak in accordance with a notification issued under section 122
That Act after the notification applies in accordance with the notification and pro tanto is adapted by the Notification
In our opinion adaptation of the Hyderabad Act under section 120 was not a condition precedent to the issuance of the Notification and the Notification having issued the Hyderabad Act applied accordingly and the appointment of Mr Sriramamurthy was therefore valid
We agree with the High Court in its conclusion
The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs
Appeal dissmissed


Summary:
The appellant was a servant in the Hyderabad Revenue Service and was holding the post of Deputy Secretary to the Government in the Public Works Department
The Government of Andhra Pradesh ordered an enquiry by the Tribunal for Disciplinary proceedings
The Tribunal enquired into the charges and recommended the dismissal of the appellant from service and after due notice to the appellant the Government of Andhra Pradesh ordered his dismissal
The appellant thereupon moved a petition under article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the aforesaid order which was dismissed by the High Court
In this Court it was urged by the appellant that the appointment of Mr Sriramamurthy was incompetent as he was 672 not qualified to act as the Tribunal of Enquiry under the Hyderabad Act
Held that by virtue of section 127 thereof the States Reorgani sation Act applied even if it was inconsistent with anything in the Hyderabad Public Servants Act 1950
By reason of section 127 and the power granted by section 122 it was competent to the Government of Andhra Pradesh to name an authority under the Hyderabad Act even though that authority might not have been qualified under the latter Act
The concluding words of section 122 shew that on the notification issuing under section 122 the existing law itself was to have effect in a different manner
Section 122 thug made the Hyderabad Act speak in accordance with the notification issued under section 122
That Act after the notification applied in accordance with the notification and was pro tanto adapted by the Notification
The adaptation of the Hyderabad Act under section 120 was not a condition precedent to the issuance of the notification and Notification having issued the Hyderabad Act applied accordingly and the appointment of Mr Sriramamurthy was therefore valid