http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: M. RAMAPPA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/01/1963

BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ) GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. WANCHOO, K.N. SHAH, J.C.

CITATION:  1964 AIR  777            1964 SCR  (1) 671

ACT: State Service-Dismissal of employee-Appointment of Tribunal- Validity-Hyderabad  Public  Servants (Tribunal  of  Enquiry) Act,  1950  (Hyd.   XXIII of 1950), ss.  3,  4-Andhra  Civil Services   (Disciplinary   Tribunal)   Rules,    1953-States Reorganisation  Act,  1956 (XXXVII of 1956), ss.  115,  120, 121, 122, 127.

HEADNOTE: The appellant was a servant in the Hyderabad Revenue Service and  was  holding  the  post  of  Deputy  Secretary  to  the Government  in the Public Works Department.  The  Government of  Andhra  Pradesh ordered an enquiry by the  Tribunal  for Disciplinary  proceedings.  The Tribunal enquired  into  the charges and recommended the dismissal of the appellant  from service and after due notice to the appellant the Government of  Andhra  Pradesh ordered his  dismissal.   The  appellant thereupon   moved   a  petition  under  Art.  226   of   the Constitution  for  quashing the aforesaid order,  which  was dismissed by the High Court.  In this Court it was urged  by the appellant that the appointment of Mr. Sriramamurthy  was incompetent as he was 672 not  qualified to act as the Tribunal of Enquiry  under  the Hyderabad Act. Held, that by virtue of s. 127 thereof the States  Reorgani- sation Act applied even if it was inconsistent with anything in the Hyderabad Public Servants Act, 1950.  By reason of s. 127 and the power granted by s. 122 it was competent to  the Government of Andhra Pradesh to name an authority under  the Hyderabad Act even though that authority might not have been qualified under the latter Act.  The concluding words of  s. 122  shew that on the notification issuing under s. 122  the existing  law  itself  was to have  effect  in  a  different manner.   Section 122 thug made the Hyderabad Act  speak  in accordance with the notification issued under s. 122.   That Act  after the notification applied in accordance  with  the notification and was pro tanto adapted by the  Notification. The  adaptation of the Hyderabad Act under s. 120 was not  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

condition precedent to the issuance of the notification  and Notification   having  issued  the  Hyderabad  Act   applied accordingly  and  the appointment of Mr.  Sriramamurthy  was therefore valid.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 356 of 1962. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated December 13, 1960, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in  Writ Petition No. 46 of 196O. A.V.  Viswanatha  Sastri,  B.  Parthasarthi  and   R.vasudev Pillai, for the appellant. D.   Narsaraju,  Advocate-General  for the State  of  Andhra Pradesh,   K.  R.  Choudhri  and  P.  D.  Menon,   for   the respondents. 1963.  January 22.  The judgment of the Court was  delivered by HIDAYATULLAH, J.-This is an appeal by special leave  against the  judgment and order of the High Court of Andhra  Pradesh dated December 13, 1960, dismissing Writ Petition No. 46  of 1960.   The  petitioner  is the appellant  before  us.   The respondents to this appeal are the Government of Andhra  673 Pradesh  and the Chairman of the Tribunal  for  Disciplinary Proceedings, Andhra Pradesh.  The appellant was a servant in the  Hyderabad Revenue Service and in 1956 was  holding  the post  of  Deputy Secretary to the Government in  the  Public Works  Department.  On a report submitted by the C.I.D.  the Government  of Andhra Pradesh ordered an inquiry under s.  4 of the Hyderabad Public Servants (Tribunal of Enquiry)  Act, 1950  (Hyderabad Act No. XXIII of 1950) by the Tribunal  for Disciplinary  Proceedings.   The Tribunal enquired  into  19 charges  and  submitted its report on July  11,  1959.   The Tribunal  found  4 charges proved and in view of  the  first charge  which involved acceptance of a bribe and charge  No. 14  which  related to tampering with official  records,  the Tribunal recommended that the appellant be - dismissed  from service.   After due notice to the appellant the  Government of  Andhra Pradesh ordered the dismissal of  the  appellant. The  appellant thereupon moved a petition under Article  226 of  the  Constitution requesting that the  order  passed  by Government be quashed.  The appellant, inter alia, contended that  under  the  Hyderabad  Public  Servants  (Tribunal  of Enquiry)  Act,  1950,  the Tribunal could  only  consist  of persons  who  were judicial officers  employed  as  Sessions judges  in the territory of India for a period of  not  less than  3  years.  He contended that though  the  enquiry  had properly  commenced  before Mr. R. Bhaskara Rao,  who  func- tioned as the Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal up to  April 19,  1959, he was succeeded by Mr. M. Sriramamurthy who  was not qualified but who heard the arguments and submitted  the report He contended that Mr. Sriramamurthy had not held  the office  of  a  Sessions judge for  three  years.   The  only question,  which was considered by the Andhra  Pradesh  High Court,  was whether in the circumstances  Mr.  Sriramamurthy was  disqualified  to act as the Tribunal.  The  High  Court held   that  in  view  of  the  provisions  of  the   States Reorganisation Act and 674 the Notification issued by the Government of Andhra  Pradesh on November 1, 1956, by which the Tribunal for  Disciplinary Proceedings in Andhra Pradesh was named as the authority  to function  under the Hyderabad Public Servants  (Tribunal  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

Enquiry)  Act,  1950,  Mr. Sriramamurthy  was  competent  to exercise functions exercisable under the Hyderabad Act.  The High Court accordingly dismissed the petition. It   is  contended  by  Mr.  Vishwanath  Sastri   that   the appointment of Mr. Sriramamurthy was incompetent because  he was  not qualified to act as the Tribunal of  Enquiry  under the Hyderabad Act.  We are concerned with the Hyderabad  Act and  the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (Act No. XXXVII  of 1956).   The relevant provisions of the first Act are ss.  3 and 4 and they may now be seen.  Section 3 of the  Hyderabad Public Servants (Tribunal of Enquiry) Act 1950, in so far as it is material, read as follows:-               "3.  (1) A Tribunal consisting of one or  more               members  shall be constituted for the  purpose               of this Act.               (2)   Every member of the Tribunal shall be  a               judicial  officer who has been employed  as  a               Sessions judge in the territory of India for a               period of not less than three years                 ........................" Section 4 read as follows               "4.  Government  may, and in such  cases,  if,               any. as may be prescribed, shall refer to  the               Tribunal  for  enquiry  and  report  any  case               involving  an  allegation  of  misconduct   or               inefficiency  or disloyalty on the part  of  a               public servant."  675 The  corresponding provisions in the State of Andhra  before the  formation  of  the State of Andhra  Pradesh  were  the. Andhra  Civil Services (Disciplinary Tribunal) Rules,  1953, which  were  made  under  the proviso to  Art.  309  of  the Constitution.   Under those Rules which came into  force  on October 1, 1953, it was provided :---               "3.  (a)  The Tribunal shall  consist  of  one               judicial officer of the status of District and               Sessions judge."                      (Proviso omitted) It   is  admitted  that  Mr.  M.  Sriramamurthi   held   the qualification under this Rule. On November 1, 1956, the State of Andhra Pradesh was  formed by the amalgamation, among others, of portions of  Hyderabad State  with the State of Andhra.  The States  Reorganisation Act contemplating the existence of diverse laws on the  same subject in the integrated units provided for the conflict of laws.   Under  s.  115  which related  to  services  it  was provided  that  every  person  who  immediately  before  the appointed day was serving in connection with the affairs  of an   existing  State,  parts  of  whose   territories   were transferred   to  another  State,  would  from   that   date provisionally  continue  to  serve in  connection  with  the affairs of the successor State to that existing State unless he  was required to serve provisionally in  Connection  with the  affairs  of  any other  successor  State.   Under  this section  the  appellant  automatically began  to  serve  the successor  State,  namely,  the  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh. Section 120 gave the power to the State Government to  adapt laws.   It  provided that the Government of  the  succeeding State could make adaptations and modifications of the law of an existing State whether by way of repeal or amendment,  as may be necessary or expedient, and after 676 such  adaptations, every such law was to have  effect  until ;altered, repealed or amended by a competent Legislature  or other competent authority.  Section 121 gave a special power

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

to  Courts, Tribunals and authorities to construe  the  laws where  no provision or insufficient provision has been  made for the adaptation of a law to facilitate the application of the law in relation to any State newly formed though without affecting  the  substance of the matter.  Section  122  then provided as follows: -               "122.  The Central Government, as respects any               Part  C  State, and the  State  Government  as               respects  any  new State  or  any  transferred               territory. may by notification in the Official               Gazette  specify  the  authority,  officer  or               person  who, as from the appointed day,  shall               be   competent  to  exercise  such   functions               exercisable under any law in force on that day               as  may be mentioned in that notification  and               such law shall have effect accordingly."               Finally, section 127 read as follows               "127.   The provisions of this Act shall  have               effect  notwithstanding anything  inconsistent               therewith contained in any other law." It  will, therefore, be seen that the States  Reorganisation Act applies even if it is inconsistent with anything in  the Hyderabad  Public Servants (Tribunal of Enquiry) Act,  1950. By  reason of s. 127 and the power granted by s. 122 it  was competent  to  the Government of Andhra Pradesh to  name  an authority under the Hyderabad Act even though that authority might  not  have been qualified under the latter  Act.   The concluding  words of s. 122 shall be competent  to  exercise such  functions exercisable under any law in force  on  that day as may be mentioned in that notification and such law  611 shall have effect accordingly" show that on the notification issuing  under  s. 122 the existing law itself  is  to  have effect in a different manner. The  argument  of  Mr. Vishwanath  Sastri  that  before  the Hyderabad  Act could be departed from, it had to be  adapted under  s.  120 by substituting an authority  different  from that named in s. 3 therefore might have been effective if s. 122  had  not  concluded  in  the  manner  indicated  above. Section 122 by its very terms makes the Hyderabad Act  speak in accordance with a notification issued under s. 122.  That Act  after the notification applies in accordance  with  the notification  and pro tanto is adapted by the  Notification. In our opinion adaptation of the Hyderabad Act under s.  120 was  not  a  condition  precedent to  the  issuance  of  the Notification   and  the  Notification  having   issued   the Hyderabad Act applied accordingly and the appointment of Mr. Sriramamurthy  was therefore valid.  We agree with the  High Court in its conclusion.  The appeal fails and is  dismissed with costs.                                Appeal dissmissed. 678