Y PANDURANGA SWAMY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined service in the Co-operative Department in the year 1953 as Senior Inspector at Eluru. He was promoted as Sub Registrar of Co-operative Societies in February 1961 and was the business Manager of the West Godavari District Co-operative Marketing Federation. Eluru from 9-1 While he was discharging his duties, according to the petitioner, honestly to the satisfaction of his superiors, the State of Andhra Pradesh respondent No. 1 on 29-8-1966 referred to the Tribunal for Disciplinary proceedings. Government of Andhra Pradesh respondent No. 2 for enquiry and report under Section 4 of the A. P. Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act. 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the Disciplinary Tribunals Act) certain allegations of misconduct against the petitioner. The 2nd respondent on 18-9-1966 framed three charges against the petitioner. Those charges are: "That the charged officer while working as Co-operative Sub-Registrar Business Manager of the Co-operative Marketing Federation, West Godavari District Eluru from 9-12-1961 to 29-3-1964 acquired properties in all valued about Rs. 16, 000.00 in the names of his wife, father and children which are disproportionate to his known sources of income and thereby he is guilty of misconduct within the meaning of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunals) Act, 1960 and the Rules framed thereunder. Charge No 2: That the charged officer while working in the same capacity as mentioned in charge No. 1 had purchased properties referred to in items 1 and 2 mentioned in the allegation given under charge No. 1, in the name of his wife, within the local limits of his authority without the prior sanction of the Government and thus violated Rule 10 of the Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1958 and thereby he is guilty of misconduct within the meaning of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960 and the rules framed thereunder. Charge No 3: - That the charged officer while working in the capacity as mentioned in charge No. 1 acquired three items of properties as mentioned in the allegations made under charge No. 1 in the name of his wife and children and being a Government servant failed to submit a full and complete statement of movable and immovable properties held or acquired by him or by any member of his family annually and he failed to do so even when he was directed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and thus violated sub-rules (7) and (8) of Rule 9 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964 and thereby he is guilty of misconduct within the meaning of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960 and the Rules framed there support of his contention he examined D. Ws. 1 to . the 2nd respondent rejecting the contention of the petitioner, held him guilty of all three charges solely on the ground according to the petitioner that he failed to establish that the properties in question were acquired by his wife and his father with their own resources and earnings. The 2nd respondent then submitted its report to the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent acting upon the said report ordered the dismissal of the petitioner from service by G. O. Ms. No. 1182 dated 8/09/1968. This order of dismissal is challenged before us in this writ Petition.

(2.) The learned Counsel argued that from a reading of the Tribunals report, it is evident that the Tribunal has found him guilty of the first charge because he failed to establish that the properties acquired by his wife and his father were with their own resources and earnings. This conclusion has been reached by the Tribunal by application of Section 5 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. This clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the aforesaid Act came into force on 19-12-1964 and as the acquisitions of which the petitioner is charged, relate to a period between 9-12-1961 and 29-3-1964 he could not have been convicted by applying the provisions of convicted by applying the provisions of Section 5 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. In support of his argument he relies upon the provisions of Article 20(1) of the Constitution. he also contends that a statute or a Rule should contends that a statute or a Rule should contends that a statute or a Rule should not be so construed as to create new disabilities or obligation or impose new duties in respect of transactions which had been completed before the Statute or Rule came into force. He also contended that if Section 5 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not applicable, there is no evidence on the basis of which the petitioner could have been held guilty of the first charge made against him. As regards charges 2 and 3 his contention is that they depend upon the proof of charge No. 1. If it is held that charge No. 1 is not proved, the petitioner has also to be exonerated on charges 2 and 3.

(3.) In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner, it is necessary to consider the provisions of the Disciplinary Tribunals Act, the Rules made thereunder and the Provisions of Section 5 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Disciplinary Tribunals Act by Section 4 provides for the reference to the Tribunal for enquiry and report such cases as may be prescribed of allegations of misconduct on the part of the Govt. Servants. Section 10 empowers the Government to make rules under the provisions of the Act. The word prescribed occurring in Section 4 has been defined by Section 2 (c) of the Act to mean prescribed under the Rules made under this Act. Rule 2 (b) of the Rule made under the Act before its amendment on 6/05/1966 read: "Corruption shall have the same meaning as Criminal misconduct in the discharge of official duties under Section 5 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Central Act 2 of 1947)." At the time when the rules were enacted in the year 1961, Section 5 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act contained only clauses (a) to (d). The said Act was amended and clause (e) was added on 19/12/1964 which reads as follows: