CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD Vs. R VEERABHADRAM
LAWS(SC)-1990-7-33
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Decided on July 09,1990

Chief Secretary To Government Of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad Appellant
VERSUS
R Veerabhadram Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

AVINASH MATHUR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1998-8-29] [REFERRED TO]
KULDEEP SHARMA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1998-8-19] [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD VS. R VEERABHADRAM [LAWS(SC)-1990-7-33] [REFERRED TO]
A N VERMA VS. S K CHATURVEDI MANAGING DIRECTOR BHARAT PUMPS AND COMPRESSORS NAINI ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2003-3-114] [REFERRED TO]
A.K.SINGH VS. UNION OFINDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2014-8-229] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Heard Shri T. V. S. N. Chari for the appellant. Respondent appeared in person. Delay condoned. Special leave granted.
(2.)The State of Andhra Pradesh prefers this appeal from the order dated 21/03/1989 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative tribunal made in R. P. No. 2396 of 1988 on its file, quashing certain disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent. The charges against the respondent were that he while working as Additional Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Reforms tribunal II, Amalapuram, passed orders on 30/12/1978 in two cases in which he determined the extent of the holdings by treating the minor sons of the declarants as majors as on the notified date in order that the declarants be benefitted and that respondent did so for corrupt considerations by overlooking certain glaring discrepancies and tell-tale suspicious features in the so called birth certificate and other documents presented by the declarants.
(3.)The tribunal rested the conclusion it reached as to the infirmities which, according to it, vitiated the proceedings principally on two grounds. The first was that though the disciplinary proceedings were initiated at a time when respondent was still in service, however, their continuation after the attainment by him of the age of superannuation was subject to and attracted the condition envisaged in Rule 9 (2) (b) and (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and that such continuation of the disciplinary proceedings which did not satisfy the requirements of those sub-rules would be invalid.
;


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