http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DR. RAHIMUDDIN KAMAL

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       07/02/1997

BENCH: J.S. VERMA, S.P. KURDUKAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T      S.P. KURDUKAR, J.      This civil  appeal by  Special Leave  is filed  by  the State of Andhra Pradesh and another challenging the legality and correctness  of the  judgment and  order dated August 7, 1984 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in review representation  being Misc.  Petition No. 322 of 1984 in Representation  Petition No.  142 of  1978 filed  by  the respondent. 2.   A few  facts relevant  for the  disposal of this appeal may be briefly summarised as under:-      The respondent  was appointed  on 18th  April, 1945  as Tehsildar in  revenue department  of the  erstwhile State of Hyderabed. On re-organization of the States on 1st November, 1956, the  respondent was  allotted State of Andhra Pradesh. In the year 1957, he was promoted as Deputy Collector. 3.   While serving  as the  Deputy Collector, the respondent applied for  the granted  leave from 11th June, 1963 to 10th June, 1968.  While on  leave, on  14th November,  1964,  the respondent  sought   pre-mature  retirement.  The  Board  of Revenue informed  the respondent.  that the govt. servant in superior service  governed by  old  pension  rules  had  the option to  retire from  service only  after completion of 25 years of qualified service. While sanctioning the last spell of extension  of leave  from 1st January, 1968 to 10th June, 1968, the  Board of  Revenue informed the respondent that he would cease  to be a government servant from 11th June, 1968 as per  Rule 29  of the  Hyderabad Civil  Service Rules (for short ‘Rules’) according to which a government servant after five years of continuous absence from duty elsewhere than on foreign service  ceases to  be a government servant. Despite such communication,  the respondent did not join the service on 11th  June, 1968 but sought permission on 19th June, 1968 to serve  in a  private company started by him and his wife. According to  the appellants,  the respondent  thus had  not only violated  Rule 29  of the Rules by remaining absent for more than  five years  but also contravened Rules 10, 11 and 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1964. In the  meantime, the  Government of  Andhra Pradesh on 28th August, 1968 appointed the Secretary to the Board of Revenue

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

as  enquiry  officer  under  Rule  19(2)(a)  of  A.P.  Civil Services (Classification,  Control and  Appeal) Rules, 1963. On November  24, 1970,  a charge  sheet came to be served on the respondent.  The respondent  submitted his reply on 28th December, 1970  but did  not ask  for any  oral inquiry.  On perusal  of   the  reply,   the  Authority  found  that  the explanation given  by the  respondent was  not  satisfactory and, therefore, on 31st March, 1972, a show cause notice was issued  to   him  (respondent)   indicating   the   proposed punishment of  removal from  service. Vide  order dated 23rd September, 1977, the respondent was removed from service. By another order  dated 13th December, 1977, the period between 11th June, 1968 to 23rd September, 1977 was treated as ‘dies non.’ It  is relevant  to mention  that till  the  order  of removal from  the service was made, the respondent continued to  remain   absent.   In   1978,   the   respondent   filed representation  petition   against  the  orders  dated  23rd September, 1977  and 13th  December, 1977  before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative  Tribunal. After hearing the parties, the A.P.Administrative  Tribunal vide  its order  dated June 10,  1984   dismissed  the   representation  petition.   The respondent  thereafter  filed  review  representation  Misc. Petition No.  322 of 1984 before the said Tribunal. The A.P. Administrative Tribunal  after hearing the review petitioner and the  respondent vide its order date 7th August, 1984 set aside the  order of removal of the respondent passed on 23rd September, 1977 though upheld the order dated 13th December, 1977 on  the ground  that prior  to the issue of order dated 23rd  September,   1977,  the   Andhra   Pradesh   Vigilance Commission was  not consulted  by the Government as required by  the  then  existing  Rule  4(2)  of  A.P.Civil  Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules. 4.   From the  record, it  is found  that the  Government of Andhra Pradesh  on 31st  October, 1984  issued G.O.M.S.  No. 1618 whereby  it annulled  the orders  of the Tribunal dated August  7,   1984  passed  in  review  representation  Misc. Petition No.  322 of  1984. This  order was  issued  by  the Government of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of its powers under Article 371-D(5)  of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved by the order  dated 31st  October, 1984,  the respondent  filed writ petition  in the  High Court  of Andhra Pradesh and the High Court  vide its  order date 12th February, 1987 relying upon the  decision of  this Court in P.Sambamurthy Vs. State of  Andhra  Pradesh,  1987(1)  APLJ  13,  allowed  the  writ petition and  set aside  the order  dated 31st October, 1984 passed by  the Government  of Andhra Pradesh. The Government of Andhra  Pradesh feeling  aggrieved by the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on August 7, 1984 has  filed   this  appeal   challenging  the   legality  and correctness thereof. 5.   The  Andhra   Pradesh  Administrative   Tribunal  after considering  to   Rule  2(b)  of  the  A.P.  Civil  Services (Disciplinary Proceedings  Tribunal) Rules  (for short  ‘DPT Rules’)   which    defines   the    "misconduct"   and    on reconsideration of  Rule 4  opined that the charges levelled against the  respondent relate  to the misconduct as defined under Rule  2(b) ibid  and since  the Government  of  Andhra Pradesh under sub rule (2) of Rules 4, as it then stood, did not consult  the Andhra  Pradesh Vigilance Commission before passing the  order of  removal on  23rd September, 1977, the said order  is rendered illegal. However, the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal did not disturb the order dated 13th December, 1977  as regards  treating the period between 11th June, 1968  to 23rd  September, 1977 as "dies non." The only question, therefore,  that falls for our consideration is as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

to whether  Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal was right in setting  aside the  order of  removal of  the  respondent passed on  23rd September,  1977 solely  on the  ground that before passing  this order, the Government of Andhra Pradesh did not  consult  the  Vigilance  Commission.  In  order  to appreciate  the   rival  contentions,  it  is  necessary  to reproduce Rule 4 of DPT Rules which reads as under:-      "4.(1)    In every case referred to      in sub-rule  (1) or  (2) of rule 3,      on completion of investigation, the      anti corruption department or other      departmental  authority   concerned      shall submit  a report  of the case      to the Government.      (2)  The  Government   shall  after      examining such  records  and  after      consulting the  Heads of Department      concerned,  if   necessary,  decide      whether the  case shall be tried in      a court  of law of inquired into by      the   Tribunal    or   departmental      authority.  But   before  taking  a      decision,  the   Government   shall      consult    the    Andhra    Pradesh      Vigilance Commission.      (3)  If the  Government decide that      the case  shall be inquired into by      the Tribunal,  they shall  send the      records   relating    thereto   the      Tribunal.      (4)  In any  case where the Head of      the Department is not consulted, he      shall be  informed  of  the  action      that is being taken.      (5)  There shall  be a  Director of      Prosecutions and as many Additional      Directors of Prosecutions as may be      considered  necessary   to  conduct      enquiries   on    behalf   of   the      Government  in  disciplinary  cases      before the Tribunal and the accused      officer concerned  shall be allowed      to be  represented by  counsel.  In      case   where    the   Director   of      Prosecutions   or    any   of   the      Additional Directors of Prosecution      cannot attend  to  examinations  of      witnesses on commission, and ad-hoc      Director of  Prosecutions shall  be      appointed. (As  per G.O.Ms. No. 109      (Ser.D) 25-2-1969." 6.   Rule 2(b) of DPT Rules defines the "misconduct":-      "Misconduct" shall  have  the  same      meaning  as   criminal   misconduct      under   Section    5(1)   of    the      Prevention of  Corruption Act, 1947      (Central Act  II of 1947) and shall      include any  attempt to  commit any      offence referred  to in  clause (c)      or clause  (d) of  that section and      any "wilful  contravention  of  the      rules made  under  the  proviso  to      Article  309   of  the  of  persons      appointed  services  and  posts  in      connection with  the affairs of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

    State." (  G.O.Ms. No.  1026,  G.A.      (Ser-D), dated 16-2-1969." 7.   Admittedly, the  respondent had  remained  absent  from duty for  more than  five years  commencing from  10th June, 1968 till  the order  of removal  was made  on September 23, 1977. His  absence from duty, therefore, would be covered by the definition of misconduct under Rule 2(b) of DPT Rules.      Learned counsel for the appellants urged that Rule 4(1) and (2) of DPT Rules have no application in the present case because no  vigilance investigation was ever directed by the Government  of   Andhra   Pradesh,   Vigilance   Commission. Alternatively, it  was submitted  that assuming  that clause (2) of  Rule 4  of DPT Rules applies in the present case yet the same is not mandatory and, therefore, no consultation by the Government  with the Andhra Pradesh Vigilance Commission would not  render  the  order  dated  23rd  September,  1977 illegal. A  somewhat similar question fell for consideration before the Constitution Bench of this Court in State of U.P. Vs. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, 1958 SCR 533. In this reported decision, a  penalty of  reduction in  rank was made without consulting the  Public Service  Commission. An  argument was raised that  under Article  320(3)(c) of the Constitution of India, it  was obligatory  to  consult  the  Public  Service Commission before  any adverse  order was  made against  the public servant.  This Court  while construing the provisions of Articles 311 and 320 (3)(c) of the Constitution held that the provisions  of Article  320(3)(c) relating  to the prior consultation with  the Public  Service  Commission  are  not mandatory and  that non  compliance thereof  does not afford cause of  action to  the respondent  (public servant)  in  a court of law. This Court observed as under:-      "An examination  of  the  terms  of      Article 320  shows  that  the  word      "Shall"  appears  in  almost  every      paragraph and  every clause or sub-      clause of  that article. If it were      held that the provisions of Article      320(3)(c) are  mandatory in  terms,      the other clauses or sub-clauses of      that  article   will  have   to  be      equally held  to be  mandatory.  If      they are  so held, any appointments      made to  the public services of the      Union or a State, without observing      strictly the  terms of   these sub-      clauses in  clauses (3)  of Article      320,  would  adversely  affect  the      person so appointed to a public ser      vice, without any fault on his part      and without  his having  any say in      the matter.  This result  could not      have  been   contemplated  by   the      makers of  the Constitution. Hence,      the use  of the  word "shall"  in a      statute, though  generally taken in      a   mandatory   sense,   does   not      necessarily man  that in every case      it shall  have that effect, that is      to say,  that unless  the words  of      the   statute   are   punctiliously      followed, the  proceeding,  or  the      outcome of the proceeding, would be      invalid. On  the other  hand, it is      not  always  correct  to  say  that      where the word "may" has been used,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

    the statute  is only  permissive or      directly in  the  sense  that  non-      compliance  with  those  provisions      will  not   render  the  proceeding      invalid." 8.   The relevant  portion of  clause (2)  of Rule  4 of DPT Rules reads thus:-      "4(2)-       ...................But      before  taking   a  decision,   the      Government shall consult the Andhra      Pradesh Vigilance Commission." 9.   The phraseology  used in  Article 320(3)(c)  is similar and reads thus:-      "The    Union     Public    Service      Commission  or   the  State  Public      Service Commission, as the case may      be, shall be consulted." 10.  The word  "shall" appearing in clause (2) of Rule 4 set out  herein   above,  therefore,  in  our  opinion,  is  not mandatory and  consequently non consultation with the Andhra Pradesh Vigilance  Commission would  not render the order of removal of  the respondent  passed on  23rd September,  1977 illegal. 11.  Mr.  H.S.Gururaja   Rao,  the  Learned  Senior  Counsel appearing for  the respondent  relied upon  the Judgment  of this Court  in Deokinandan  Prasad Vs.  State of  Bihar 1971 (Suppl.) S.C.R.  634 to  contend that  the word  "shall"  in clause (2)  of Rule  4 of the DPT Rules must be construed as mandatory and  non observance thereof would render the order dated 23rd  September, 1977 illegal. After going through the judgment, we  are unable  to accept the contention raised on behalf of  the  respondent.  He  then  relied  upon  another decision of this Court in Jai Shanker Vs. State of Rajasthan 1966(1) SCR  825. It  was a  case  where  Regulation  13  of Jodhpur Service  Regulations was not questioned. it provided for automatic  termination of  service on  account  of  over staying the  leave  period  for  more  than  one  moth.  The question  raised   before  the   Court  was   whether   such termination attracts  Article 311  and answer  given by this Court is  in the  affirmative. The  facts of  this  reported decision are quite distinguishable and has no application to the facts of the present case. 12.  For the  foregoing reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the  order dated  August 7,  1984 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.