MOHAMMAD KUTUBBUDDIN Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal by certificate. It directed against the decision of the High court of Andhra Pradesh in C. C. C. A. No. 39 and 59 of 1960 by that judgment the High court substantially modified the decree of the trial court.

(2.) The plaintiff was a member of the erstwhile Hyderabad Civil Service. He joined service on 20/07/1933. He was subsequently promoted as Deputy Collector and confirmed in that post on 16/09/1943. On 24/03/1946, he was declared substantive Collector. On 3/03/1947, he was transferred as Deputy Commissioner of Customs. On 16/10/1949, he was placed under suspension on the basis of some "report made by his superior and thereafter he was served with a charge-sheet on 8/11/1949. During the period of his suspension he was granted subsistence allowance according to rules. On receiving the enquiry report from the Board of Revenue, the government called upon the plaintiff to show cause why he should not be made to retire on proportionate pension. He duly submitted his explanation. After considering the same, the government by its notification dated 15/03/1952, retired him from service with effect from 29/04/1952 on proportionate pension. Subsequently, however, the government by its notification dated 31/05/1952, 'cancelled the order of retirement but at about the same time it served him with a new show cause notice as to why be should not be retired. The plaintiff submitted his explanation to the said notice. He was again served with a fresh charge-sheet on 3/04/1953 by which he was directed to show cause why he should not be removed from service on the basis of his continued inefficiency. To this also, the plaintiff submitted his explanation. Thereupon on 1/04/1955, the Board of Revenue communicated to him an order reinstating him in service but at the time he was reverted as a Deputy Collector. Alter joining this post the plaintiff asked the government to furnish him the reasons for reversion. He was informed by the government by its letter dated 10/07/1954, that he was reverted to his substantive post on the ground of his being mediocre and inefficient. Against this order of reversion the plaintiff made a representation to the government on 22/07/1954. Thereafter he appealed to the Rajpramukh on October 9,1954 but the appeal was rejected on 2/06/1956

(3.) Meanwhile the States Reorganisation Act was passed by the Parliament. On 18/09/1956 the plaintiff was informed that he had been allotted to the Mysore State consequent upon the reorganisation of the States. The plaintiff by his application of 20/09/1956, represented to the Hyderabad government that having regard to the fact that he belonged to Telengana and bearings in mind the sufferings which he had to undergo, he should be retained in Andhra Pradesh and if for any reason that request of his is not to be granted, he prayed that permission may be according to him to retire on proportionate pension under G. A. D. Circular No. 36 dated 28/05/1956, read with Circular No. 94 dated 28/08/1956, which gave Government servants option to retire before 30/09/1956. In the meantime it appear one Sri Ramchandra Asthana who was in the same cadre as the plaintiff expressed his willingness to go to Mysore State. On learning about that fact, the plaintiff represented to Andhra Pradesh Government on 31/10/1956, for retaining him in Andhra Pradesh State in the place of the person who was prepared to go to Mysore State. Therein he further stated that his previous application may be cancelled. The States were reorganized on 1/11/1956. Hence the Andhra Pradesh Government was not in a position to pass any order on the application made by the plaintiff on 31/10/1956. That application was forwarded to the Mysore Government. The plaintiff instead of handing over charge on. 1/11/1956 and reporting himself for duty to the Mysore Liaison Officer continued to hold on to his office in the Andhra Pradesh State. Sometime in November the Andhra Pradesh Government directed him to relinquish his charge and report himself for duty to the Mysore Liaison Officer. Though the plaintiff was relieved of the charge that he was holding on 3/12/1956, he does not appear to have reported himself for duty to the Mysore Liaison Officer. Thereafter the plaintiff moved the Andhra Pradesh High court under Art. 226 of the Constitution to quash the order allotting him to Mysore State. That petition was dismissed. On 2/04/1957, the Mysore government accepted the offer made by the plaintiff in his letter of 20/09/1956 to retire from service and ordered his retirement on proportionate pension. On 3/12/1957, the plaintiff brought the suit from which this appeal arises after giving notices to the governments of Andhra Pradesh and Mysore under s. 80, Civil Procedure Code.