MOHAMMAD GHOUSE Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition challenges the order passed by the Government dated 26-6-1958 in G. O. Ms. No. 1584 dismissing him from service on a charge of corruption and irregularities in court work. For a proper appreciation o the contentions raised the facts relating to suspension and dismissal of the petitioner and the writ petition and appeal to" the Supreme Court filed by him prior to this petition may be enumerated.

(2.) The petitioner was recruited to the Madras Judicial Service as a District Munsif in 1935 and in 1949 he was promoted to the office of the Subordinate Judge and pasted at Masulipatam on 19-6-1950. The charge of bribery levelled against him was with respect to two connected suits tried by him, O. S. No. 95 of 1946 and O. S. No. 24 of 1949. On 27-7-1950, the trial having concluded, arguments were heard and judgment was reserved. On 10-8-1950, petitions were filed to re-hear the cases, which were allowed and, after hearing the parties, the cases were again reserved for judgment. Lingam Sitharama Rao, the 5th defendant In both the suits, thereafter filed a petition in the High Court of Madras for transferring the suits to another court on the ground that the petitioner was trying through his brother, Basha, to obtain a bribe from the parties. The High Court passed an order staying the delivery of the judgment in those suits and the suits themselves were eventually transferred to the Sub Court, Gudivada, and the petitioner was also transferred on 16-9-1950, to the Sub Court at Amalapuram in East Godavari District, after which the High Court started investigation into the allegations made in the affidavit and the stay petition. After the; enquiries were made and the report was received, a charge was framed against him on 2-4-1953, in the following terms: "That you in or about August 1950 being at that time Additional sub. Judge, Masutipatam entered into a conspiracy with your brother Md. Rasuddin alias Basha for the purpose of obtaining a bribe from the parties in O. S, Nos. 24/49 and 95/46 on the file of your Court, and that, in pursuance of the conspiracy, the said Md. Rasuddin at Vijayawada attempted between 11-8-1950 and 13-8-1950 to obtain a bribe from Lingam Satyanarayana Rao and his son Lingam Seetarama Rao (the 5th defendant in both the above suits). You are hereby required within 15 days of the receipt by you of this proceeding (i) to submit written statement of your defence and to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against you in respect of the above charge, and (if) to state whether you desire an oral enquiry to be held or only to be heard in person." This charge was denied by the petitioner in his letter dated 27-4-53 wherein he stated that in the absence of a narration of facts on proof of which this serious charge against him could be sustained, he could only deny the charge and the circumstances appearing against him. He accordingly requested for the supply of information so That he might submit a full and satisfactory explanation. On the information being supplied to him, he filed a detailed written statement on 22-6-1953.

(3.) The High Court had, during this period also received complaints that the petitioner had committed serious irregularities in the discharge of his duties in the Subordinate Court, Amalapuram, to the effect that he had delayed delivering judgments in the suits and appeals for an unreasonable time, that he had made false returns to the District Court and to cover his defaults, he had altered the records of the Court so as to be consistent with those returns-. Charges were framed with respect to these irregularities also on 15-1-1953 and further charges relating to the same matter were framed on 6-5-1953. With reference to these, the petitioner furnished replies on 22-6-1953. These charges, both relating to the bribery and irregularities in official duties, were enquired into by one of the Honble Judges of the High Court of Madras who held them to be proved in his report dated 20-10-1953. It may be stated that, prior to this report, the Andhra State came into existence on 1-10-1953, but the High Court of Madras continued to have jurisdiction over the Andhra area till the 5/07/1954 on which date a separate High Court for Andhra was established. This report was considered at a meeting of the Honble Judges of the Madras High Court on 25-1-1934, where by a majority it was decided that the proper punishment to be awarded on the charge of bribery was dismissal from service and regarding the charges of irregularities in his duties etc. was removal from service. Pursuant to this decision, by an order dated 28-1-1954, the High Court suspended the petitioner until further orders and it was communicated to him on 30-1-1954. The petitioner thereafter filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madras challenging the jurisdiction of the High Court to suspend him on the grounds, firstly that under the Andhra Civil Services Disciplinary Proceedings (Tribunal) Rules 1953, which had been put into effect from 1-10-1953, an enquiry into the conduct of the Government servants on a monthly salary of Rs. 250.00and above could be held only by a Tribunal to which the Government might refer and that therefore the proceedings of the High Court of Madras culminating in the order of suspension were without jurisdiction and consequently the order in question was void as it was in contravention of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, When this petition was pending disposal, the Government of Andhra by its memorandum dated 12-8-1954 gave a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause why in view of the findings he should not be dismissed from service as re-commended by the enquiring Judge and confirmed by the High Court. The writ petition, which was pending in the Madras High Court, was transferred to Andhra High Court which by its decision dated 19-11-1954 dismissed if, holding that though Rule 4 of the Andhra Civil Services (Disciplinary) Rules differed in some respects from the corresponding rule of the Madras Civil Services Rules, the differences are not of a substantial character and were due more to inexpert drafting than to any deliberate intention to bring about a change in them. Consequently it held that the High Court had jurisdiction to hold an enquiry into the conduct of the subordinate Judicial officers and the order of suspension was valid. (Vide Mohomed Ghouse v. State of Andhra (S) AIR 1955 Andhra 65). Against that judgment, the petitioner appealed by special leave to their Lordships of the Supreme Court who confirmed the order of the High Court and dismiss" ed the appeal. Mohammed Ghouse v- State of Andhra. AIR 1957 SC 246. Before the Supreme Court also, the petitioner pressed the same grounds urged before the High Court. The petitioner raised three contentions before their Lordships, viz., (1) that the proviso to Rule 4 of the Andhra Rules governs only Sub-rule (2) and not Sub-rule (1), and consequently an enquiry against a judicial officer could not be held by the High Court, but should be referred to a Tribunal of enquiry by the Government as he was an officer drawing a salary over Rs. 150.00per month; (2) that as the authority which appointed him was the Governor, it was only that authority that could dismiss or remove him from service and that the order of suspension made by the High Court on 28-1-1954, was in contravention of Article 31b of the Constitution and was consequently bad; and (3) that even if the High Court could hold a preliminary enquiry into the conduct of a judicial officer, it had no jurisdiction to decide the matter finally, that the findings given by the enquiring Judge should not be held to conclude the question against the petitioner and that the Government was bound to hold a fresh enquiry and decide for itself whether the charges were well-founded. With respect to the first contention, Venkatarama Ayyar, J., speaking for the Court, observed at page 249 thus; "......There has been some argument before us as to whether the concluding proviso in Rule 4 of the Andhra Civil Services Rules, qualifies both Sub-rules (1) and (2) or only Sub-rule (2). While, on the one hand, there is force in the contention of the appellant that having regard to its setting, the proviso should more properly be read as qualifying Sub-rule (2), we are inclined to agree with the learned Judges of [he High Court that, read as a whole, the Rule does not show an intention, to depart from the procedure laid down in the Madras Civil Services Rules. The point, however, is one of academic interest, as the Rule in question has subsequently been amended by G. O. No. 938 dated 11-4-1955. and it expressly provides that the amendment shall be deemed to have come into force on 1-10-1953. By reason of this amendment, which is expressly retrospective in character, the main ground of objection on which the application of the appellant was founded, is no longer tenable. In view of this conclusion, it becomes unnecessary to consider the contention of the respondent that Rule 4 of the Andhra Civil Services Rules could not, in any event, apply 10 enquiries which had been validly initiated previously thereto." The second contention was also negatived, though if was observed that that contention does not appear to have been pressed in the High Court and was moreover without substance. With respect to this contention it was observed: "....The order passed by the High Court on 28-1-1954, is merely one o suspension pending final orders by the Government, and such an order is neither one of dismissal nor of removal from service within Article 311 of the Constitution. It was also argued that the High Court had no authority under rules to suspend a judicial officer pending final orders of the Government. But under Rule 13 of the Madras Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, it is the High Court of Judicature at Madras that is constituted as the authority; which may impose suspension pending enquiry into grave charges under Rule 17(e) against (he Members of the State Judicial Service. The order in question, therefore, falls within this rule, and is perfectly intra vires." The Supreme Court declined to enter an the third contention on the ground that no such contention was raised either in the petition or in the High Court.. After the decision of the High Court, the petitioner sent his explanation on the 21-1-1957 to the show-cause notice against the proposed punishment of dismissal and removal from service, on a perusal of which and the other documents, the Government passed the impugned order.