M RAMAPPA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (W.P. No. 46 of 1960):-The petitioner seeks the removal of an order of dismissal passed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh on certiorari. The material facts giving rise to the writ petition are capable of a concise statement. The petitioner joined the Hyderabad Revenue Service in 1940 and from 1948 onwards he had been holding the posts of the category of District Collector. In 1956, he was appointed the Deputy Secretary to Government in the Public Works Department. While so, on the basis of a report submitted by the X Branch, C.I.D., in respect of certain allegations of corruption and other misconduct, the Government of Andhra Pradesh referred the matter to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings under section 4 of the Hyderabad Public Servants (Tribunal of Inquiry) Act, 1950 (XXIII of 1950) (hereinafter will be referred to as the Act for convenience).

(2.) As many as nineteen charges of corruption were framed against him by the Tribunal and the petitioner was called upon to furnish his explanation within the time prescribed in the memorandum of charges. After the submission of the explanation, an elaborate oral enquiry was held in which number of witnesses were examined for the prosecution and for the defence and several documents also were filed. The entire evidence was recorded by Sri Bhaskara Rao who held the office of the Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal upto April, 1959, when he was transferred to some other post. Therefore, he could not submit his report. His successor, Sri M. Sriramamurthy, heard the argument based on the oral and documentary evidence and submitted his report. An objection was formulated before him that he was not competent to hold the enquiry as he did not satisfy the qualification prescribed by section 3 of the Act. This objection was negatived and the Tribunal submitted its report finding the delinquent officer guilty of the four charges and acquitting him of the rest.

(3.) Thereupon, the Government, acting under the Proviso to section 9 of the Act and under the Proviso to rule 16 of the Hyderabad Public Servants (Tribunal of inquiry) Rules, 1960, called upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service.