# M. N. DASANNA v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH May 2, 1973

- **Citation:** [1974] 1 S.C.R. 172
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1973-05-02
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1596 of 1967
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/m-n-dasanna-v-state-of-andhra-pradesh-may-2-1973-6648
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

M. N. DASANNA
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
May 2, 1973.
[A. N. GROVER, A. K. MUKHERJEA AND C. A. VAIDJALINGAM, IJ:)
A.ndhra Pradesh Civil Service (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act,
1960-Rule 7 read with the proviso-I/ a report submitted by the
Chairmo11
who heard only the arguments but did not hold the enquiry himself is a valid
revort under the vroviso to Sec. 7.
The appellant was the officer-in-charge of Vijaywada Government Head·
·quarter$ Hospital. On a reference by the Government of Andhra
Pardesh,
the Tribunal under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Service (Disciplinary Proceedings
Tribunal) Act, 1960, framed a number of
char~s against him. Proceedings
by the Tribunal were first conducted before one K, the Chairman of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal consisted of two members. Charges were fram ·ct and, the ca!i:C
·was transferred to the other member N. The case was later withdrawn from
him and K continued the enquirv until March 21. 1963 and examined certain
witnesses. On the same date. the case was transferred to one s. who had suc-
·Cceded N.
S, held the enquiry for sometime. and examined a number of wit·
nesses. He retired in July 1963. One G. who succeeded him continued to hold
the enquiry and examined some
witnesses.
After the written statement of
the appellant had been filed and his witnesses
had been examined, he heard
arguments but before he could submit a report S, was
transferred and was
succeeded by _one C, who was the·n the Chairman of the Tribunal. He submitted a report on July 31, 1964. He held that out of 22 charges only 10 had
been proved.
Thereafter, a notice was Sent to the appel1ant bjr the State to
show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. and on September 3,
1964, the State directed that the penalty of dismissal
be imposed on the
appellant.
Tbe appellant moved the High Court challenging the order of dismissal
mainly on the ground that the proceedings before the Tribunal were vitiated
from b~glnning to end. While the writ petition was pending. a decision was
given by a Division Bench of the High Court construing identical provisions of
the Hyderabad Public Services (Tribunal Enquiry) Act that where one member alone conducted an enquiry and submitted his report, that repOrt was in·
valid. In the meantime, an amendment was made in s. 7 of the Andhra Pra·
desb Act by adding a proviso, which provided that where a single member. of
the Tribunal holds an inquiry, be alone shall report his findings and it wilt be
deemed to be a report of the Tribunal
for the purposes
of the Act. The
appelJant submitted that the amendment did not make any difference to his
case; but the High Court negatived his contention
and dismissed
the writ
petition.
Allowing the appeal.
HELD : (i) According to the substantive oart of s. 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Service (Disciplinary
Proceedings Tri.bun al) Act, 1960, it .is the
Tribunal which is to reoort the findings to the Government on the conclusion
of the enquiry. In 0ther wonls, even if the enquiry was conducted bv one
member. two members have to subtllit their report. if the Tribunal consists of
two members, as in the present case. The proviso only enables the report to be
submitted by one
member
alone if the condition
pr.e-requisite is satisfied,
namely, that he has held the enquiry himself in the matter. If he has held tho
enquiry instead of two members, bi!'.! report may l>e deemed to be the report of
the Tribunal.
·
·
To the present case, it is not in disnute that the Chairman of the Tribunal
never conducted any part of the enquiry and that he had onlv heard argume!1ts and then submitted his report giving his finding-,.
In the judgment of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court, C. K. Doraiswamy Naidu
v.
Andhra Pradesh
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
M. N. DASANNA V. A. P. STATE (GrQver, /.)
173
J.L.R. 1967 A.P. 904, it was laid down that the word 'Enquiry' under a. 8 of 1Jle
Act doe. nol include a finding. The en9uiry was stated to cover the healina of
che case. i.e .. recording evjdenc

## Text

M. N. DASANNA
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
May 2, 1973.
[A. N. GROVER, A. K. MUKHERJEA AND C. A. VAIDJALINGAM, IJ:)
A.ndhra Pradesh Civil Service (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act,
1960-Rule 7 read with the proviso-I/ a report submitted by the
Chairmo11
who heard only the arguments but did not hold the enquiry himself is a valid
revort under the vroviso to Sec. 7.
The appellant was the officer-in-charge of Vijaywada Government Head·
·quarter$ Hospital. On a reference by the Government of Andhra
Pardesh,
the Tribunal under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Service (Disciplinary Proceedings
Tribunal) Act, 1960, framed a number of
char~s against him. Proceedings
by the Tribunal were first conducted before one K, the Chairman of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal consisted of two members. Charges were fram ·ct and, the ca!i:C
·was transferred to the other member N. The case was later withdrawn from
him and K continued the enquirv until March 21. 1963 and examined certain
witnesses. On the same date. the case was transferred to one s. who had suc-
·Cceded N.
S, held the enquiry for sometime. and examined a number of wit·
nesses. He retired in July 1963. One G. who succeeded him continued to hold
the enquiry and examined some
witnesses.
After the written statement of
the appellant had been filed and his witnesses
had been examined, he heard
arguments but before he could submit a report S, was
transferred and was
succeeded by _one C, who was the·n the Chairman of the Tribunal. He submitted a report on July 31, 1964. He held that out of 22 charges only 10 had
been proved.
Thereafter, a notice was Sent to the appel1ant bjr the State to
show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. and on September 3,
1964, the State directed that the penalty of dismissal
be imposed on the
appellant.
Tbe appellant moved the High Court challenging the order of dismissal
mainly on the ground that the proceedings before the Tribunal were vitiated
from b~glnning to end. While the writ petition was pending. a decision was
given by a Division Bench of the High Court construing identical provisions of
the Hyderabad Public Services (Tribunal Enquiry) Act that where one member alone conducted an enquiry and submitted his report, that repOrt was in·
valid. In the meantime, an amendment was made in s. 7 of the Andhra Pra·
desb Act by adding a proviso, which provided that where a single member. of
the Tribunal holds an inquiry, be alone shall report his findings and it wilt be
deemed to be a report of the Tribunal
for the purposes
of the Act. The
appelJant submitted that the amendment did not make any difference to his
case; but the High Court negatived his contention
and dismissed
the writ
petition.
Allowing the appeal.
HELD : (i) According to the substantive oart of s. 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Service (Disciplinary
Proceedings Tri.bun al) Act, 1960, it .is the
Tribunal which is to reoort the findings to the Government on the conclusion
of the enquiry. In 0ther wonls, even if the enquiry was conducted bv one
member. two members have to subtllit their report. if the Tribunal consists of
two members, as in the present case. The proviso only enables the report to be
submitted by one
member
alone if the condition
pr.e-requisite is satisfied,
namely, that he has held the enquiry himself in the matter. If he has held tho
enquiry instead of two members, bi!'.! report may l>e deemed to be the report of
the Tribunal.
·
·
To the present case, it is not in disnute that the Chairman of the Tribunal
never conducted any part of the enquiry and that he had onlv heard argume!1ts and then submitted his report giving his finding-,.
In the judgment of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court, C. K. Doraiswamy Naidu
v.
Andhra Pradesh
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
M. N. DASANNA V. A. P. STATE (GrQver, /.)
173
J.L.R. 1967 A.P. 904, it was laid down that the word 'Enquiry' under a. 8 of 1Jle
Act doe. nol include a finding. The en9uiry was stated to cover the healina of
che case. i.e .. recording evjdence, admitting documents and generally completina
the records upgn which a finding will be based. Therefote, the stage of enquiry
has to be completed before the argument is advanced as is clear from Rule
7(l)(iii). The net result would be that according to the Act and the Rulea
frained thereunder, arguments would not be a part of enquiry.
The Chairmao
of the Tribunal had only heard arguments and had not held any part of the
eμquiry. Therefore, bis report could not be deemed to be a report of the Tribo~
nal under the Proviso to &. 7 of the Act. [l76E]
(ii) Under s. 7 the position is quite clear that if the tribunal consists of
more than one member and if the enquiry is held by a single member, he alone
can report his findings and his report shall be deemed to be the report of the
Tribunal.
But where a single member bas not held any enquiry, then his report
cannot be deemed to be the report of the Tribunal, and it is essential that all
members of the Tribunal should submit the report.
As arguments
could not
form part of the enquiry, the conditions of s. 7 could not b regarded to have
been .fulfilled.
The result would be that the order of dismissal based on the
report submitted by the Chairman, must be held to be illegal and void. [177B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1596 of 1967.
Appeal by special leave fro! the judgment and order dated July 5,
1956 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P. No. 468 of 1965.
a,
A. K. Sen,, A. V. Rangam and A. Subhashini for the appellant.
F;
G
P. Ram Reddy and B. ~arthasarathy, for the respondent No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
GROVER, J. This is an appeal by certificate from a judgment of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing a writ petition filed by
the
appellant challenging the order of dismissal from service.
Tue appellant who has passed the M.B.B.S. examination of the
Madras University in 1940 entered the service of the State of Madras
on August 14, 1941 as Civil Assistant Surgeon. On the formation of
the State of Andhra Pradesh his services were allotted to the new
State. In 1961 he was working as Officer-in-charge of Vijaywada
Government Headquarters Hospital.
On a reference by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the Trib•
nal, under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings) Tribunal Act 1960, hereinaf1er cailed the 'Act', framed a nwnber of charges against him. Proceedings by the Tribunal were mt
conducted before Shri K. Umpathy Rao, the Chairman of the Tribunal,
which at all material times, consisted of two members. The charges'
were framed by him on August 22, 1962. On or about January 7,
1963 the case was transferred to the other member Shri Nazimuddill.·
On the protest of the appellant that the said member would be biased
against him the case was withdrawn from him .and Shri K. Umpathy
Rao continued the enquiry un'il March 21, 1963 and examined certain
witnesses. On the same date the case .was transferred to Shri Shankar
Pershad who had succeeded Shri Nazimmudin on the latter's appointHi ment. Shri Shanker Pershad held the inquiry until June 20, 1963 and
examined a number of witnesses. He retired in July 1963. Shri G.
Ramaiah Chowdhary who succeeded him continued to hold the enquiry and examined some witnesses.
After the written statement of
174
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 19i4] 1 s.c.R.
· the appellant had been filed and his witnesses had been examined he
heard arguments on October 26, 1963.
Before he could submit a
report Shri Chowdhary was transferred on February 2, 1964 and was
succeeded by Shri C. J aganathacharyulu who was then the Chairman
of the Tribunal. He submitted a report on july 31, 1964. He held
that out of the 22 charges only 10 had b~en proved. On September
15, 1964 a notice was sent to the appellant by the first respondent
herein to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service.
On September 3, 1964 the first respondent direcfei:l that the-penalty
of dismissal be imposed on ihe appellant.
The appellant moved the High Court under Art. 226 of the Consti·
tution challenging the order of dismissal principally oh the ground that
the proceedings before the Tribunal were vitiated from beginning to
the end. While the writ petition was pending a decision was given by
the Division Bench ( 1) of the High Court on September 7, 1965 con·
struing identical provisions of the Hyderabad Public Service (Tribunal)
Enquiry Act that where one member alone conducted an enquiry and
submitted his report that report was invalid and opposed to the provisions of the Act ai1d the decision of the Government on such report
would be without jurisdiction. It is claimed on behalf of the appel!-
lant tha1 in accordance with that decision the writ petition would have
been Jllowed but for an amendment which was made in s. 7 of the
Act by adding a proviso which may be noticed.
"7. On the conclusion of an inquiry, the Tribunal shall
report its findings to the Government ..... .
Provided that where a single member of the· Tribunal
holds an inquiry into a case as provided in sob-section ( 1)
of Se"Ction 6, he alone shall report his findings and recommend the penalties and his report to the Government in this
regard shall be deemed to be the report of the Tribunal for
the purposes of this Act".
The appellant submitted to the High Court that the amendment did
not make any difference and affect the merits of the case in any man•
ner but the High Court negatived his contention and dismissed the
wiit petition.
We shall presently consider the contentions that have been pressed
before us on behalf of the appellant but we cannot help observing at
the threshold that the manner in which the proceedings were conducted
before the Tribunal strikes us as most extraordinary. It is somewhat
surprising that even when 'the member who was holding the enquiry
had not been transferred or had not retired and was in a position •o
conclude the enquiry and make a report the proceedings were tran!lferred either to the Chairman or some other member.
The relevant
provisions of the Ac+ and the rules may now be noticei't. Secti"n l
provided for the constitution of a TribuTlal for discip1inary proceedings
consistin~ of one or more members. "'here the Tribunal consists of
more than one member the Government has to designate one of the
(1) C. K Doraiswamy Naidu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh I.LR. [1967] Andhra
Pradesh. 901.
c
p
E
F
G
"
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
II
M. N. DASANNA v. A. P. STATE (Grover, 1.)
175
members as the Chairman. Under s. 6( I) if the Tribunal consists
· of more than one member an inquiry into a case referred to tlie Tri-
.bunal shall be held by all the members sitting together or by a single
·member as the Chairman may direct.
Under s. 7 the Tribunal has
to report i •s findings to the Government on the conclusion of the inquiry. Section 7, as it stood before the amendment Act 27 of 1965,
provided that on the conclusion of an inquiry the Tribunal .shall report
its findin~s to the Government. The proviso which was inserted after
the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court mentioned before has
already b~en quoted .
., Rule 7 of the Rules framed under s. 10 of the Act requires the
Tribunal to follow the proce<!ure prescribed thereby. Under Rule
7(2) (i) after an inquiry has been completed the Tribunal has to send
the report of its findings and recommendations to the Government together with its opinion. Sub-rule 2(iii) says :
"After the Government have arrived at provisional conclusions in regard to the penalty to be imposed, the Government ser\iant charged shall be supplied with a copy of the
report of Tribunal . . . . . . and he shall be called upon to
show cause within a reasonable time. . . . . . . . against the
particular penalty proposed to be imposed ...... "
Sub-rule 6 of Rule 7 is material and is reproduced below :-
"Where the Chairm~n or any member of the Tribunal is
prevented by death, transfer or other cause from concluding
an enquiry or from reporting his findings in any case referred
to the Tribunal, his successor may deal with any evidence
taken down by his predecessor in office as if such evidence
had been taken down by him and may proceed with the enquiry from the stage a\ which his predecessor had left it, or
report his findings to the Government,"
This sub-rule (6) was added by G.0.M. 690 dated the 12th June
1964.
The High Court was of the view that if Shri Venkatarao who made
the report could be said to have held an enquiry under s. 6(1) that
his report would be valid in view of the proviso to s. 7. It was pointed
out that under sub-rule 6 of Rule 7 Shri Venkata Rao as member of
the Tribunal was competent to lawfully deal with 'he evidence which
had been taken down by his predecessor as if such evidence had been
taken down by him. He proceeded to hear arguments on the 9th and
I 0th Julv 1964. The hear in~ of ar<ruments was a oart of the ertquiry
under s. 6(1). It was not, therefore, necessary that the report must
have been made by both members of the Tribunal.
Now it is quite clear that Shri Venkata Rao never examined any
witnesses or took on record any evidence. All that he did was
to
hear arguments afresh, Under section 7 on conclusion of an enquiry
it is the Tribunal which has to report its findings to the Government.
The proviso was inserted as is clear from the s•atement of Objects
and Reasons contained in the Bill which was introduced for enacting
the amending Act of 1965 because of the decision of the
Andhra
176
SUPREMB COUllT REPORTS
[ 1974] 1 S.c.R.
Pradesh High Court referred to before in which it was held that the
purpose· of having a Tribunal of more than one member was that all
members should bring to bear their mind to the matter in controversy
and come to the conclusion that where a single member had he1d an
inquiry the findings of the report should be given by all the members.
It was pointed out that the intention was that where a smgle member
held an inquiry under s. 6(1) he alone should report his findings and
recommend the penalties in the report to be submitted to the Government. Where a single member held an inquiry it might not be appropriate to require the other member who had not enquired into
the
case and who did not have an opportunity of hearing the evidence to
take part in further proceedings and recording the findings and submitting the report to the government. In order to make the intention
clear and to validate the action taken by the Government in the past
on the findings and the report of a single member of the Tribunal, the
Ap.dhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings) Tribunal
Amendment Ordinance 1965 had been promulgated by the Governor.
That was later followed by the Amendment Act 1965.
As Rule 7(6) cannot abrogate the provisions contained in the Act
and the provisions of the Act must prevail, we shall have to determine
what the true import and meaning of the proviso to s. 7 is.
It is
abundantly clear that according to the substantive part of s. 7 it is the
Tribunal which has to report the findings to the Government on the
conclusion of the enquiry. In other words even if the enquiry is con·
ducted by one member two members have to submit their report if the
Tribunal .:onsists of two members as was the case here. The proviso
only enables the report to be submitted by one member alone if the
condition pre-requisite is satisfied, namely, that he has held an inquiry
himself into the matter. If he has held the enquiry then instead of
two members his report shall be deemed to be the report of the Tribunal. The crucial question, therefore, in the present case is whether
the report of Shri Venkata Rao satisfied the conditions laid down in
s. 7 and the proviso thereto. It is not in dispute that he had never
conducted any part of the enquiry and that he had only heard arguments and then submitted a report giving his findings. In the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court (supra) it was laid down that
the word "enquiry" in s. 8 of the Act does not include a finding. The
enquiry was stated to cover the. hearing of the case i.e.
recording
evidence, admitting documents and generally completing the record
upon which a finding would be based. It is only after all the material
has been placed on the record by both the sides that the stage of reporting a finding would arise. We en•irely concur with this view. In
our. opinion the stage of enquiry is completed before the arguments
have to be advanced as is dear from Rule 7(1)(iii) which is in the
following terms :-
"As the enquiry, oral and documentary evidence shall be
first adduced by the prosecution and the Government sel'-
vant charged shall be entitled to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and to explain any documents produced by the
prosecution.
After the enquiry is completed. the Government servant charged shail be entitled to advance the necesA
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
M. N. DASANNA v. A. P. STATE (Grover,/.)
177
sary arguments and the prosecution shall have a right of
reply".
The net result would be that according to the AC!
and the Rules
framed thereunder arguments would not be a part of enquiry.
As
Shri Venkata Rao lfad only heard arguments and had not held any
part of the enquiry, his report could not be deemed to be the report
of the Tribunal under the proviso to s. 7 of the Act. As pointed out
before sub-rule 6 of Rule 7 cannot override s. 7 of the Act, Under
s. 7 the position is quite clear that if the Tribunal consists of more
than one member and if 'the enquiry is held by a single me-fiber ho
alone can report his findings and his report shall be deemed to be a
report of the Tribunal but where a single member has not held any
enquiry then his repor.t cannot be deemed to be the report of the Tri·
bunal and it is essential that. all members of the Tribunal should submit
their -report.
As arguments could not form part of the enquiry the
cond1t1ons of s. 7 could not be regarded to have been fulftlled.
1hc
High Court was entirely in error in holding that Shri Venkata Rao
who had only heard arguments should be treated to have held part
oi the enquiry and therefore his report should be deemed to be th"
report of the Tribunal. The result would be that t!ie order of dismissal
based on the report submitted by Shri Venkata Rao must be held to
be illegal and void.
·
For the reasons given above the appeal is allowed and the order of
the High Court is set aside. The writ petition shall stand allowed with
the result that the order of dismissal shall stand quashed. The appellant will be entitled to his costs in this Court.
s.c.
Appeal allowed.
13-944SupCI/73