K SATYANARAYANA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(APH)-1972-10-5
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on October 06,1972

K.SATYANARAYANA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.Krishna Rao, J. - (1.) This Full Bench has been constituted in view of the fact that the Division Bench consisting of Narasimham, J., ( as he then was ) and Parthasarathi, J., before whom the above appeal came up for hearing, disagreed with the view expressed by another Division Bench ( Obul Reddy and Madhava Reddy, JJ. ) in Writ Petitions Nos. 1140 and 1141 of 1965 ( Andh Pra ) ( judgment dated 13-10-1969 ).
(2.) The appellant herein is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 746 of 1965. The Writ Petition was filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of prohibition restraining the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings from continuing the enquiry against the petitioner in D. E. No. 29 of 1964 on its file and for a consequential order to drop the proceedings.
(3.) When the appellant was serving as Police Sub-Inspector, he received an order dated 9-5-1964 from the Superintendent of Police placing him under suspension. On 10-7-1964 charges were framed by the Disciplinary Tribunal in D. E. No. 29 of 1964. On 16-7-1964 the Government issued G. O. Ms. No. 233, directing that all those whose services were extended beyond the date of their superannuation for the purpose of continuing proceedings against them , shall be deemed to have retired. The Superintendent of Police no doubt passed an order stating that he would not permit the appellant to retire unless the enquiry was over. The appellant was due to retire on 24-9-1964. It is common ground that the Government did not pass any order extending his service as required by the Fundamental Rules for the purpose of continuing the enquiry. Under these circumstances, the appellant filed the Writ Petition stating that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to continue the disciplinary proceedings against him beyond the date of his superannuation. The Writ petition came up for hearing before Ekbote, J., as he then was. The learned Judge held that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to continue the enquiry as per the provisions of Art. 351-A of the Pension Code. It was however argued before the learned Judge that the Tribunal acquired jurisdiction only under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services ( Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal ) Act II of 1960 and that the provisions of Art. 351-A in so far as they seek to confer jurisdiction of the Tribunal, should be recorded as void on the ground that they are repugnant or inconsistent with the provisions of the Act II of 1960. The learned Judge rejected the contention holding that there was no inconsistency or repugnancy between the two provisions and that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to continue the enquiry as per the provisions of Art. 351-A of the Pension Code. In coming to this conclusion the learned Judge relied upon a judgment of his Writ Petition No. 595 of 1965 ( Andh Pra ) which was delivered on the same day. Aggrieved by this judgment the appellant filed the above writ appeal. Justice Parthsarathi on behalf of the Division Bench made an order of reference agreeing with the view of the Ekbote, J., as he then was. But before the Division Bench the appellant relied upon the view expressed by another Division Bench in W. P. Nos. 1140 and 1141 of 1965 ( Andh Pra ) referred the above, wherein it was held that the provisions of Art. 351-A of the Pension Code cannot have the effect of overriding the provisions of Act II of 1960 and do not operate to confer any jurisdiction upon the Tribunal which was constituted under the provisions of the said Act. Justice Parthasarathi who spoke for the Bench did not agree with this view but held that the provisions of Art. 351-A and the provisions of Act II of 1960 should be read as complementary to each other and that there is no specific provision in Act II of 1960 either inconsistent or repugnant to the provisions of Art. 351-A of the Pension Code. In view of this difference of opinion, the above appeal is placed before this Full Bench.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.