Case: M. N. Dasanna Vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh

had been taken down by his predecessor as if such evidence had been taken down by him. He proceeded to hear arguments on the 9th and 10th July l964. The hearing of arguments was a part of the enquiry under S. 6 (1). It was not, therefore, necessary that the report must have been made by both members of the Tribunal.8. Now it is quite clear that Shri Venkata Rao never examined any witnesses or took on record any evidence. All that he did was to hear arguments afresh Under Section 7 on conclusion of an enquiry it is the Tribunal which has to report its findings to the Government. The proviso was inserted as is clear from the Statement of Objects and Reasons contained in the Bill which was introduced for enacting the amending Act of 1965, because of the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court referred to before in which it was held that the purpose of having a Tribunal of more than one member was that all members should bring to bear their mind to the matter in controversy and come to the conclusion that where a single member had held an inquiry the findings of the report should be given by all the members. It was pointed out that the intention was that where a single member held an inquiry under S. 6 (1) he alone should report his findings and recommend the penalties in the report to be submitted to the Government. Where a single member held an inquiry it might not be appropriate to require the other member who had not enquired into the case and who did not have an opportunity of hearing the evidence to take part in further proceedings and recording the findings and submitting the report to the government. In order to make the intention clear and to validate the action taken by the Government in the past on the findings and the report of a single member of the Tribunal, the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings) Tribunal Amendment Ordinance 1965 had been promulgated by the Governor. That was later followed by the Amendment Act 1965.9. As Rule 7 (6) cannot abrogate the provisions contained in the Act and the provisions of the Act must prevail, we shall have to determine what the true import and meaning of the proviso to S. 7 is. It is abundantly clear that according to the substantive part of Section 7 it is the Tribunal which has to report the findings to the Government. On the conclusion of the enquiry. In other words even if the enquiry is conducted by one member, two members have to submit their report it the Tribunal consists of two members as was the case here. The proviso only enables the report to be submitted by one member alone if the condition pre-requisite is satisfied, namely, that he has held an inquiry himself into the matter. If he has held the enquiry then instead of two members his report shall be deemed to be the report of the Tribunal. The crucial question, therefore, in the present case is whether the report of Shri Venkata Rao satisfied the conditions laid down in Section 7 and the proviso thereto. It is not in dispute that he had never conducted any part of the enquiry and that he had only heard arguments and then submitted a report giving his findings. In the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court (supra) it was laid down that the word "enquiry in Section 8 of the Act does not include a finding. The enquiry was stated to cover the hearing of the case i.e. recording evidence, admitting documents and generally completing the record upon which a finding would be based. It is only after all the material has been placed on the record by both the sides that the stage of reporting a finding would arise. We entirely concur with this view. In our opinion the stage of enquiry is completed before the arguments have to be advanced as is clear from Rule 7 (1) (iii) which is the following terms :"At the enquiry, oral and documentary evidence shall be first adduced by the prosecution and the Government servant charged shall be entitled to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and to explain any documents produced by the prosecution. After the enquiry is completed, the Government servant charged shall be entitled to advance the necessary arguments and the prosecution shall have a right of reply".The net result would be that according to the Act and the Rules framed thereunder arguments would not be a part of enquiry. As Shri Venkata Rao had only heard arguments and had not held any part of the enquiry, his report could not be deemed to be the report of the Tribunal under the proviso to Section 7 of the Act. As pointed out before sub-rule (6) of R. 7 cannot override Section 7 of the Act. Under Section 7 the position is quite clear that if the Tribunal consists of more than one member and if the enquiry is held by a single member alone can report his findings and his report shall be deemed to be a report of the Tribunal but where a single member has not held any enquiry then his report cannot be deemed to be the report of the Tribunal and it is essential that all members of the Tribunal should submit their report. As arguments could not form part of the enquiry the conditions of S. 7 could not be regarded to have been fulfilled. The High Court was entirely in error in holding that Shri Venkata Rao who had only heard arguments should be treated to have held part of the enquiry and therefore his report should be deemed to be the report of the Tribunal. The result would be that the order of dismissal based on the report submitted by Shri Venkata Rao must be held to be illegal and void.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]9. As Rule 7 (6) cannot abrogate the provisions contained in the Act and the provisions of the Act must prevail, we shall have to determine what the true import and meaning of the proviso to S. 7 is. It is abundantly clear that according to the substantive part of Section 7 it is the Tribunal which has to report the findings to the Government. On the conclusion of the enquiry. In other words even if the enquiry is conducted by one member, two members have to submit their report it the Tribunal consists of two members as was the case here. The proviso only enables the report to be submitted by one member alone if the condition pre-requisite is satisfied, namely, that he has held an inquiry himself into the matter. If he has held the enquiry then instead of two members his report shall be deemed to be the report of the Tribunal. The crucial question, therefore, in the present case is whether the report of Shri Venkata Rao satisfied the conditions laid down in Section 7 and the proviso thereto. It is not in dispute that he had never conducted any part of the enquiry and that he had only heard arguments and then submitted a report giving his findings. In the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court (supra) it was laid down that the word "enquiry in Section 8 of the Act does not include a finding. The enquiry was stated to cover the hearing of the case i.e. recording evidence, admitting documents and generally completing the record upon which a finding would be based. It is only after all the material has been placed on the record by both the sides that the stage of reporting a finding would arise. We entirely concur with this view. In our opinion the stage of enquiry is completed before the arguments have to be advanced as is clear from Rule 7 (1) (iii) which is the following termsthe enquiry, oral and documentary evidence shall be first adduced by the prosecution and the Government servant charged shall be entitled to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and to explain any documents produced by the prosecution. After the enquiry is completed, the Government servant charged shall be entitled to advance the necessary arguments and the prosecution shall have a right ofnet result would be that according to the Act and the Rules framed thereunder arguments would not be a part of enquiry. As Shri Venkata Rao had only heard arguments and had not held any part of the enquiry, his report could not be deemed to be the report of the Tribunal under the proviso to Section 7 of the Act. As pointed out before sub-rule (6) of R. 7 cannot override Section 7 of the Act. Under Section 7 the position is quite clear that if the Tribunal consists of more than one member and if the enquiry is held by a single member alone can report his findings and his report shall be deemed to be a report of the Tribunal but where a single member has not held any enquiry then his report cannot be deemed to be the report of the Tribunal and it is essential that all members of the Tribunal should submit their report. As arguments could not form part of the enquiry the conditions of S. 7 could not be regarded to have been fulfilled. The High Court was entirely in error in holding that Shri Venkata Rao who had only heard arguments should be treated to have held part of the enquiry and therefore his report should be deemed to be the report of the Tribunal. The result would be that the order of dismissal based on the report submitted by Shri Venkata Rao must be held to be illegal and void.