GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. M NARASIMHA MURTHY
LAWS(SC)-1990-7-44
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Decided on July 17,1990

GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Appellant
VERSUS
M.NARASIMHA MURTHY Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

S P DUBEY VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2001-12-28] [REFERRED TO]
S P DUBEY VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2001-12-28] [REFERRED TO]
S P DUBEY VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2002-1-116] [REFERRED]
ANANTHACHARYULU T VS. PRL SUBORDINATE JUDGE [LAWS(APH)-1996-9-16] [REFERRED TO]
G SAGAR VS. BOARD OF MANAGEMENT J N T U [LAWS(APH)-1997-6-38] [FOLLOWED ON]
DARSHANAM SWAMY ALIAS SOMAIAH VS. RITHU MALHOTRA ALIAS RITHU KAPUR [LAWS(APH)-2007-7-101] [REFERRED TO]
JHALANI TOOLS INDIA LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2000-12-110] [REFERRED]
M/S TULISON INDUSTRIAL (MACHINES) PVT LTD VS. U P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVEP CORPO LTD AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-1-422] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)- The appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal dated 18-1-1979 decreeing the suit instituted by the respondent whereby he challenged the order of the Government dated 22-9-1970 dismissing him from service. The Administrative Tribunal found that the order of dismissal was rendered on the basis of an enquiry conducted by the Disciplinary Tribunal which had no jurisdiction to conduct the enquiry as R. 3(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1961, under which the enquiry is purported to have been conducted, had been declared invalid by a judgment of the High Court rendered on 20-12-1973. The Administrative Tribunal apparently did not notice that that judgment had been reversed. by a Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment dated 19-7-1976 holding that Rule 3(2) was intra vires and valid.
(2.)Mr. Nambiar, appearing for the appelant-State, raises two fundamental points. He submits that the question as to thejur'sdiction of the Disciplinary Tribunal had been concluded against the respondent in earlier proceedings as a result of which it was not open to the Administrative Tribunal to reconsider the same question. Secondly, Mr. Nambiar, submits that, R. 3(2) was in operation at all material times. It was.in force at the time of the reference to the Disciplinary Tribunal. It remained in force long past the submission of the enquiry report of that Tribunal. The subrule was deleted only in 1978. The decision of the learned single Judge striking,down R. 3(2) had been reversed by the Division Bench as a result of which the validity of the rule was never affected.
(3.)Counsel for the respondent, Mr. P. Krishna Rao, submits that although the jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Tribunal had been questioned by the respondent in the earlier proceedings, no decision had been rendered specifically on the point and the dismissal of the special leave petition instituted by the respondent did not result in res. judicata as regards the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal. He further submits that at the time of instituting the respondent's suit, the judgment of the learned single Judge was in force, and by the time the decree of the Administrative Tribunal was rendered in 1979 the sub-rule itself had been deleted.
;


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