Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959AP497
Jaganmohan Reddy, J.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, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(2)ALD585; 2006(2)ALT289; [2006(110)FLR282]; (2006)IIILLJ570AP
T. Meena Kumari, J. (for A. Gopal Reddy, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J. and herself)1. A Division Bench of this Court presided by the then Chief Justice Hon'ble Sri Devinder Gupta by its order dated 15-12-2004 felt proviso (b) to Rule 45(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short 'the 1991 Rules') appears to have not been taken note of by the Full Bench in V. Venkata Bharani v. High Court of A.P. 2001 (6) ALT 225 which in its turn had approved the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in V. Rajamallaiah v. High Court of A.P. : 2001(3)ALD625 and thus referred the matter to the Full Bench to consider the question as to the legality and validity of disciplinary proceedings continued against the petitioner under A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1963 (for short 'the 1963 Rules') after 1991 Rules were adopted by the High Court. On placing the matter before the Full Bench, it held that the department...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(2)ALT593
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by a dismissed judicial officer for a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the notification issued in G.O. Ms. No. 55 Law (LA & J, Cts. CI) Department dated 7.4.1999 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the 1st respondent herein, dismissing the petitioner from judicial service as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution of India and for a consequential direction to the State Government and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the 2nd respondent herein, to accept the resignation submitted by the petitioner on 26.10.1996 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.2.The petitioner while serving as Subordinate Judge (now redesignated as Senior Civil Judge), Narasaraopet, was served with a charge memo dated 10.9.1997 by the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, who was appointed as the Enquiry ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(1)ALD823; 2006(1)ALT661; (2006)IILLJ448AP; 2007(1)SLJ459(NULL)
ORDERJ. Chelameswar, J.I had the advantage of going through the judgments rendered by both my learned brothers. Both of them arrived at the same conclusion, but for slightly different reasons.I agree with the conclusion reached.P.S. Narayana, J.1. I prefer to add a couple of sentences of my own while agreeing with the conclusion of my learned brother. The importance of a disciplinary enquiry or departmental enquiry in Service Jurisprudence need not be overemphasized. In view of the importance of the question involved in the present matter, the Division Bench thought it fit to refer the matter thus inviting a decision on the said point. The learned Counsel on record made elaborate submissions in relation to the language employed in Rule 19 of the A. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1963, and Rule 20 of the amended Rules of 1991. Certain submissions were made even in relation to the meaning of 'cause to be drawn' and also incidentally Rule 21 of the 1991 Rule...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(6)ALD500; 2006(6)ALT771
Ramesh Ranganathan, J. 1. Aggrieved by the interlocutory order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, in O.A. No. 2414 of 2006 dated 27.4.2006, whereby the petitioner was directed not to dismiss the 1st respondent-applicant from service, on the basis of the judgment of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada, in C.C. No. 40 of 2000 dated 4.3.2006, pending further orders, the present writ petition is filed by the Municipal Corporation of Guntur.2. Brief facts, to the extent necessary, are that the 1st respondent-applicant was working as a Junior Assistant in the Municipal Corporation, Guntur. Consequent upon a trap laid by the A.C.B, while the 1st respondent-applicant was demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 800/- to do an official favour, a case was registered against her in C.C. No. 40 of 2000 before the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada. The Special Judge, by order dated 4.3.2006, convicted the 1st respondent-applicant under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2005(3)ALD887
P.S. Narayana, J. 1. The writ petition is filed by the unsuccessful applicant as against an order made in O.A. No. 8965/ 98 dated 4-12-2003 on the file of A.P. Administrative Tribunal in short referred to as 'Tribunal' hereinafter wherein the proceedings issued in G.O. Rt. No. 1044, T.R. and B(Ser. T.3) Department, dated 28-11-1998 had been assailed.2. Sri Venkata Sastry, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner, in detail had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties before the Tribunal, the impugned order and had pointed out that the whole enquiry is vitiated for the reason that the same had not been conducted in accordance with the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, in short referred to as 'present Rules' hereinafter and had been conducted in accordance with the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1963, hereinafter referred to as 'old Rules' and hence the Counsel would maintain that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(3)ALD625; 2001(5)ALT228
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J 1. In this writ petition,the petitioner, who was serving at the relevant point of time as Deputy Nazir in the Court of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Excise), Karimnagar, has assailed the validity of the disciplinary action taken by the 2nd respondent, the District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, dated 1-8-1996 and order of the 1st respondent - High Court of Andhra Pradesh, confirming the above order of the learned District and Sessions Judge.2. Few relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this writ petition are to be noted briefly as under:The petitioner while working as Deputy Nazir in the above Court was kept under suspension by order dated 27-12-1995 and subsequently the learned District and Sessions Judge, the disciplinary authority, appointed the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Karimnagar as Enquiry Officer to hold a regular departmental enquiry after framing the charges. Accordingly, the Enquiry Officer framed a charge on 4-3-1996, which is as fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(3)ALD73; 2007(3)ALT342
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, in O.A. No. 1888 of 1999 dated 20.07.2001 and R.A. No. 68 of 2001 dated 16.10.2001, Sri Ch. Purushotham, erstwhile Train Conductor Guard, South Central Railway, Vijayawada has preferred this writ petition.The petitioner joined as a Ticket Collector on 10.05.1976. He was initially promoted as a Senior Ticket Collector in 1979, thereafter as a Travelling Ticket Examiner in 1982, and as a Head Travelling Ticket Inspector in 1995. During the period when he was discharging the duties of a Travelling Ticket Inspector in the A/c chair cars of Train No. 7245 Ratnachal Express, running between Visakhapatnam and Vijayawada, he was issued charge memo dated 18.03.1997, containing two articles of charge.Article-IThat the said Sri Ch. Purushottam, TCG/BZA while working as such during the month of November, 1996 committed serious misconduct in that by Train No. 7245 express on 26.11.95, while manning AC Chair...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(6)ALD18; 2001(5)ALT543
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. Constitutionality of Rule 153(8) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') is in question in this appeal. 2. The appellant herein who was appointed as Sub-Inspector in the Railway Protection Force and subsequently was promoted as Inspector, was placed under suspension on 18-9-1995 on the allegation that he made excess delivery of scrapworth about Rs.10,000/-. A departmental proceeding has been initiated against him wherein he seeks to engage a friend to defend his case. 3. The Parliament enacted the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to provide for the constitution and regulation of an armed force of the Union for the better protection and security of railway property and for matters connected therewith. Section 21 of the said Act provides for the rule making power inter alia for regulating the punishments and prescribing authorities to whom appeal shall be preferred from orders of pun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : (1961)ILLJ569AP
ORDERP. Chandra Reddi, C.J.1. The petitioner seeks the removal of an order of dismissal passed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh on certiorari.2. The material facts giving rise to the writ petition are capable of a concise statement. The petitioner Joined the Hyderabad Revenue Service in 1940 and from 1948 onwards he had been holding the posts of the category of District Collector. In 1956, he was appointed the Deputy Secretary to Government in the Public Works Department, while so, on the basis of a report submitted by the X Branch, OLD., in respect of certain allegations of corruption and other misconduct, the Government of Andhra Pradesh referred the matter to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings under Section 4 of the Hyderabad Public Servants (Tribunal of Inquiry) Act, 1950 (XXIII of 1950) (hereinafter will be referred to as the Act for convenience).2. As many as nineteen charges of corruption were framed against him by the Tribunal and the petitioner was called upon to fur...
Tag this Judgment!