# M,Rama#IJ v. C11W1nmtnl of Jf.ndllro Prat/Uh

- **Citation:** [1964] 1 S.C.R. 671
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1964
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 356 of 1962
- **Bench:** B. P. S1mu, P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. N. Wanchuo, M. HrnAYATULLAH, J: C. Shah
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/m-rama-ij-v-c11w1nmtnl-of-jf-ndllro-prat-uh-2804
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Stale
Service-Dismissal of employee-Appointment of
Tribunnl-Validity-8'1derabad Public Scn;ants (Tribunal of
E11q1>iry) Act, 1950 (Hyd. XXl!l of 1.950), ss. 3, 4-Andnra
Civil .\]ervire.'i
(Di.<ctplinary
Tr1'.bunal)
Rules, J9.53-i..9tates
Reorganisation Act, 1966 (XXXVII of 19-56), ss. 115, 120, 121,
122, 127.
The appellant was a servant in the Hyderabad Revenue
Service and was holding the post of Deputy Secretary to the
Govern1 .1e11t in the Public YVorks Department. The Government of Andhra Pradesh ordered an enquiry by the Tribunal
for Disciplinary pr.)ceedings.
The Tribunal enquired into the
charges and recommended the dismissal of the appellam from
service and after due notice to the appellant the Government of
Andhra Pradesh ordered his. dismissal.
The appellant ·,hereupon m·Jved a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for
quashing the afon·said order, which wa.s dismissed by the High
Court.
In this Court it was urged by the appellant that the
appointment of 1fr. Sriram?lrnurlhy was incompc:tent as he was
1963
K.S. Ram·imurthi
Reddiar
•.
The Chief Commis~
sio114r, Pondich~"Y
Wanchoo, ).
1963
I onuarv, 22.
1963
M,Rama#IJ
v.
C11W1nmtnl of
Jf.ndllro Prat/Uh
Hi<layatu/W, J.
672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS[l964] VOL.
not qualified to act as the Tribunal of Enquiry under the
Hyderabad Act.
Held, that by virtue of s. 127 thereof the States Reorganisation 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.
1~2 it was competent to the
C'n>vernment 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 existin.:z: law i1self was ro have effect in a different manner.
Section 122 thu' made the Hyderabad Act speak in accordanct
with the notification issued under s. 122. That Act after the
notification applied in <lccordance with the notification and was
pro /an/o adapted by the Notification. The adaptation of the
Hyderabad Act under s. 120 was not a condition precedent to
the issuance of the notification and Notification having issued
the Hyderalw< Act applied accordingly and the appointment
of ~·fr. Srira11~.~murthy ,~:as therefore valid.
C1vrL .(\PPt;L, •.TE JURISDICTfOX : 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 19f10 .
.4. I'. Vi.<uxmatha Sastri, B. Parthasarthi and
R. l'asu.dev Pillai, for the appellant.
n. NarsaraJ°u, Adrncrite-General for the Sta~ of
Andhra Pmrlesh, K. fl. Chnudhri and P. D . .Menan.
for the respondents.
19G3. January 22. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
HmAYATUJ,LAJI, J.-This is
an
appeal by
special leave against the judgment and order of the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated December 13,
19ti0, dismissing Writ Petition No. 46 of 1960. The
petitioner is the appellant before us.
The respon·
dents to this appeal are the Government of Andhra
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
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 Strva~ts
(Tribunal of Enquiry) Act, 1950 (Hyderabad Act
No. XXIII of l!l50) by the Tribunal for Disciplinary
Proceedings.
The Tribm1al enquired into 19 charges
and submitted its report on Jnly ll, 1959.
The
Tribunal found 4 charges proved and ii; view of the
first charge which involved acceptance of a bribe
and charge No. 14 which related to tami:;ering with
official records, the Tribunal recommended that the
appellant be dismissed from service.
After due
notice. to the app

## Text

I S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 671
was made.
That is another reason why the present
petition must faiL
We therefore dismiss the appeal and pass no
order as to costs in respect thereof. We dismiss the
writ petition with costs.
Appeal dism·issed.
Writ petition dismissed.
----
M. RAMAPPA
t•.
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AND ANOTHER
(B. P. S1mu, C. ]., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR,
K. N. WANCHUO, M. HrnAYATULLAH
and J: C. SHAH, .JJ.)
Stale
Service-Dismissal of employee-Appointment of
Tribunnl-Validity-8'1derabad Public Scn;ants (Tribunal of
E11q1>iry) Act, 1950 (Hyd. XXl!l of 1.950), ss. 3, 4-Andnra
Civil .\]ervire.'i
(Di.<ctplinary
Tr1'.bunal)
Rules, J9.53-i..9tates
Reorganisation Act, 1966 (XXXVII of 19-56), ss. 115, 120, 121,
122, 127.
The appellant was a servant in the Hyderabad Revenue
Service and was holding the post of Deputy Secretary to the
Govern1 .1e11t in the Public YVorks Department. The Government of Andhra Pradesh ordered an enquiry by the Tribunal
for Disciplinary pr.)ceedings.
The Tribunal enquired into the
charges and recommended the dismissal of the appellam from
service and after due notice to the appellant the Government of
Andhra Pradesh ordered his. dismissal.
The appellant ·,hereupon m·Jved a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for
quashing the afon·said order, which wa.s dismissed by the High
Court.
In this Court it was urged by the appellant that the
appointment of 1fr. Sriram?lrnurlhy was incompc:tent as he was
1963
K.S. Ram·imurthi
Reddiar
•.
The Chief Commis~
sio114r, Pondich~"Y
Wanchoo, ).
1963
I onuarv, 22.
1963
M,Rama#IJ
v.
C11W1nmtnl of
Jf.ndllro Prat/Uh
Hi<layatu/W, J.
672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS[l964] VOL.
not qualified to act as the Tribunal of Enquiry under the
Hyderabad Act.
Held, that by virtue of s. 127 thereof the States Reorganisation 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.
1~2 it was competent to the
C'n>vernment 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 existin.:z: law i1self was ro have effect in a different manner.
Section 122 thu' made the Hyderabad Act speak in accordanct
with the notification issued under s. 122. That Act after the
notification applied in <lccordance with the notification and was
pro /an/o adapted by the Notification. The adaptation of the
Hyderabad Act under s. 120 was not a condition precedent to
the issuance of the notification and Notification having issued
the Hyderalw< Act applied accordingly and the appointment
of ~·fr. Srira11~.~murthy ,~:as therefore valid.
C1vrL .(\PPt;L, •.TE JURISDICTfOX : 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 19f10 .
.4. I'. Vi.<uxmatha Sastri, B. Parthasarthi and
R. l'asu.dev Pillai, for the appellant.
n. NarsaraJ°u, Adrncrite-General for the Sta~ of
Andhra Pmrlesh, K. fl. Chnudhri and P. D . .Menan.
for the respondents.
19G3. January 22. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
HmAYATUJ,LAJI, J.-This is
an
appeal by
special leave against the judgment and order of the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated December 13,
19ti0, dismissing Writ Petition No. 46 of 1960. The
petitioner is the appellant before us.
The respon·
dents to this appeal are the Government of Andhra
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
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 Strva~ts
(Tribunal of Enquiry) Act, 1950 (Hyderabad Act
No. XXIII of l!l50) by the Tribunal for Disciplinary
Proceedings.
The Tribm1al enquired into 19 charges
and submitted its report on Jnly ll, 1959.
The
Tribunal found 4 charges proved and ii; view of the
first charge which involved acceptance of a bribe
and charge No. 14 which related to tami:;ering 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 req nesting 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 Ttibunal 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 functioned as the Disciplinary Proce.edings 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
1963
M. l!amappa
v.
Govtrnm~nt of
Andhra PradeJh
I-Jida,yalullah 1 J,
1~63
M. Rotr14f1Pa
v.
Governmtnl tf
A.flfiltra Pradtsh
Hidayatullah, J.
674
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
the Notification issued bv the Government of Andhra
Pradesh on November 1,' l!l;i6, by which the Tribunal
for Disciplinary Proceedings in Andhra Pradesh was
named as
the authoritv to function
under the
Hyderabad Public Servants (Tribunal of Enquiry)
Act, 1950, Mr. Sriramamurthy was competent to
exercise functions exercisable under the Hyderabad
A.ct.
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 Tribu·
nal of Enquiry under the H ydcrabad Act.
We are
concerned with the Hyderabad Art ancl the States
Reor~•anisation Act,
l!l:ili (Art No. XXXVI! of
J!.156).
The relevant provisions of the first Act are
ss. :l arid 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. (I) A Trirunal 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 lcS> 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."
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
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, wqich 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
8essions Judge."
(Proviso omitted)
It is admitted that Mr. M. Sriramamurthi held
the qualification under this Rule.
On November 1, 1956, the State· of Andh~a
Pradesh was formed by the amalgamation,, ainong
others, of portions of H ydcrabad 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 appoimed day was serving in connection with the
affairs oJ 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 tha.t 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
mal<e adaptations and modifications of the law of an
existing State whether by way of repeJJ.I or amendment, as may be necessary or expedient, and after
M. Rt1ma/J/Hl
v.
Governmmt' •.f
Andhrll Pradesh
HidaJiJ.tulla , J.
1963
... !. R•11•/•/i•
v.
G<'1 unmnct of
An fh1a Pratitsh
/fida)Qtu:/ah, J.
6i6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
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 to Courts, Tribunals and authorities to construe the laws where no provision .Jr
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 a~ 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, 19;i0. By reason ofs. 127
anrl the power granted bys. 122 it was competent to
the Government of Andhra Pradesh to name an
authority under the JI yderabad 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
i s.c.:R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
677
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 ifs. 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 notifica1 ion 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
N9tification 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 dismissed . .
---
1963
M. /{cmapra
v.
Govunmuit of
Antihra Pradesh
Hitiayat11ilah, J.