STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. MOHAMMED MAZHARUDDIN AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is preferred by the State of Andhra Pradesh (defendant) against the decree and judgment of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.S. No. 7 of 1960 on his file, while Mohammed Mazharuddin Ahmed (plaintiff) has preferred the Cross-Objections. The relevant facts leading to this appeal may shortly be stated.

(2.) The plaintiff was appointed as a probationary Munsiff-Magistrate in the Subordidinate Judicial Service of the erstwhile Hyderabad State on 16th June, 1948, and was later absorbed in a clear vacancy of the post of Munsif-Magistrate on 21st March, 1949 in the grade of Rs. 400 to Rs. 800 (O.S.). He was posted in July, 1953 as Munsif Magistrate at Omerga in Osmanabad District. When the Chief Justice of Hyderabad High Court visited Omerga on 20th July, 1953, some of the pleaders submitted an application to him making complaints and demanding the immediate transfer of the plaintiff. On 13th August, 1953, the Registrar of Hyderabad High Court served on him a charge-sheet containing as many as nineteen charges, and requiring the plaintiff to show cause why action should not be taken against him imposing the penalty mentioned in rule 9 (vi) (compulsory retirement before completion of 25 years of qualifying service, referred to in the Rules as compulsory retirement), rule 9 (vii) (removal from service which does not disqualify from future employment), and rule 9 (viii) (dismissal from service which ordinarily disqualifies from future employment), of the Hyderabad Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the rules"). The plaintiff was also required to show cause within ten days from that date, and to put in a written statement of his defence, and to state whether he desired an oral enquiry or only be heard in person, and a copy of the complaint by the members of the Bar dated 20th July, 1953, was also enclosed. To this, the plaintiff submitted his explanation on 25th August, 1953. Mr. Justice Manohar Pershad of the Hyderabad High Court commenced the enquiry on 3rd September, 1953, and in the corse of the enquiry he framed two additional charges. After conclusion of the enquiry, the plaintiff submitted his written arguments on 16th November, 1953. The enquiry officer submitted his findings on 21st January, 1954, finding that the plaintiff was guilty of all the charges except charge No. 7, that they were serious and unbecoming of a judicial officer, and that he was not fit to be retained as a Judicial Officer, and that he should be dismissed from service under rule 9 (viii) and directed that the file may be placed before the Chief Justice.

(3.) The plaintiff was placed under suspension by an order dated 22nd January, 1954. The Registrar of the High Court, by his letter, dated 25th January, 1954, communicated the recommendation to the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Hyderabad, that the plaintiff should be dismissed from service. Thereupon, the Government issued a show cause notice dated 26th May, 1954, which referred to the charges, the plaintiff's explanation and the written arguments, and stated that they were in agreement with the findings of Justice Manohar Pershad, and that the Government proposed to impose the penalty of di missal. A copy of the findings was also enclosed to the notice and the plaintiff was required to show cause within fifteen days of the receipt thereof. The plaintiff submitted his explanation to the Government on 23rd June, 1954. The Government thereupon passed an order, Home Department Notification No. Spl./Judl./3/54, dated 24th November, 1955, that the plaintiff was charged with misconduct and communal bias, that the Administrative Judges of the High Court who conducted the enquiry recommended that he be dismissed from service, and an opportunity was given to him to show cause against it, that the Public Service Commission was also consulted, and that after consideration of all facts, the Rajapramukh was pleased to compulsorily retire him from service with effect from the date of that order, granting him proportionate pension to which he was eligible under the Rules. This order was communicated to the plaintiff by the Registrar by his letter dated 6th December, 1955. The plaintiff, thereupon, preferred an appeal to H.E.H. the Nizam the Rajapramukh of Hyderabad, through the High Court. The Government of Hyderabad, thereupon, passed an order, No. Special 93O/Judl./55, dated 23rd May, 1956, that the plaintiff's repiesentations was carefully considered by the Government, but it saw no reason to revise the orders already passed, and the Registrar, High Court, communicated the same to the plaintiff by his letter dated 30th May, 1956. At this stage, it may be mentioned that in reply to an application of the plaintiff that he should be declared to have crossed the efficiency bar with effect from 1st October, 1951 he received a communication from the High Court on 30th June, 1953, that it would be considered after six months, and that he may renew his application. On 8th October, 1956, the Government of Hyderabad issued an order No. Spl./Judl./3/54, dated 8th October, 1956, that in view of his compulsory retirement on charges of misconduct and communal bias, there was no question of his crossing the Efficiency Bar, and that the case was closed.