STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. RAHIMUDDIN KAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil appeal by Special Leave is filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh and another challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated August 7, 1984 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in review representation being Misc. Petition No. 322 of 1984 in Representation Petition No. 142 of 1978 filed by the respondent.

(2.) A few facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly summarised as under:- The respondent was appointed on 18th April, 1945 as Tehsildar in revenue department of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad. On re-organisation of the States of 1st November, 1956, the respondent was allotted State of Andhra Pradesh. In the year 1957, he was promoted as Deputy Collector.

(3.) While serving as the Deputy Collector, the respondent applied for and granted leave from 11th June, 1963 to 10th June, 1968. While on leave, on 14th November, 1964, the respondent sought pre-mature retirement. The Board of revenue informed the respon dent that the Government servant in superior service governed by old pension rules had the option to retire from service only after completion of 25 years of qualified service. While sanctioning the last spell of extension of leave from 1st January, 1968 to 10th June, 1968, the Board of Revenue informed the respondent that he would cease to be a Government servant from 11th June, 1968 as per Rule 29 of the Hyderabad Civil Service Rules (for short Rules) according to which a Government servant after five years of continuous absence from duty elsewhere than on foreign service ceases to be a Government servant. Despite such communication, the respondent did not join the service on 11th June, 1968 but sought permission on 19th June, 1968 to serve in a private company started by him and his wife. According to the appellants, the respondent thus had not only violated Rule 29 of the Rules by remaining absent for more than five years but also contravened Rules 10, 11 and 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1964. In the meantime, the Government of Andhra Pradesh on 28th August, 1968 appointed the Secretary to the Board of Revenue as enquiry officer under Rule 19(2) (a) of A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1963. On November 24, 1970, a charge-sheet came to be served on the respondent. The respondent submitted his reply on 28th December, 1970 but did not ask for any oral inquiry. On perusal of the reply, the Authority found that the explanation given by the respondent was not satisfactory and, therefore, on 31st March, 1972,a show cause notice was issued to him (respondent) indicating the proposed punishment of removal from service. Vide order dated 23rd September, 1977, the respondent was removed from service. By another order dated 13th December, 1977, the period between 11th June, 1968 to 23rd September, 1977 was treated as dies non. It is relevant to mention that till the order of removal from the service was made, the respondent continued to remain absent. In 1978, the respondent filed representation petition against the orders dated 23rd September, 1977 and 13th December, 1977 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. After hearing the parties, the A.P. Administrative Tribunal vide its order dated June 10, 1984 dismissed the representation petition. The respondent thereafter filed review representation Misc. Petition No. 322 of 1984 before the said Tribunal. The A.P. Administrative Tribunal after hearing the review petitioner and the respondent vide its order dated 7th August, 1984 set aside the order of removal of the respondent passed on 23rd September, 1977 though upheld the order dated 13th December, 1977 on the ground that prior to the issue of order dated 23rd September, 1977, the Andhra Pradesh Vigilance Commission was not consulted by the Government as required by the then existing Rule 4(2) of A.P. Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules.