Case: M. Ramappa Vs. Government Of Andhra Pradeshand Another

1. 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 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 C.I.D. the Government of Andhra Pradesh ordered an inquiry under S. 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 Art. 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, 19050, 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 functioned as the Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal upto 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 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.

Court's reasoning:
It will, therefore, be seen that the States Reorganisation Act applies even if it is inconsistent with anything in the Hyderabad Public Servants (Tribunal of Enquiry) Act, 1950. By reason of S. 127 and the power granted by S. 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 S. 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 shall have effect accordingly show that on the notification issuing under S. 122 the existing law itself is to have effect in a different manner.The argument of Mr. Vishvanatha Sastri that before the Hyderabad Act could be departed from, it had to be adapted under S. 120 by substituting an authority different from that named in S. 3 thereof might have been effective if S. 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 S. 122. That Act after the notification applies in accordance with the notification and pro tantio is adapted by the Notification. In our opinion adaptation of the Hyderabad Act under S. 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.