1956 (11) TMI 38 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to conduct an enquiry after the implementation of the Andhra Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1953.
2. Validity of the suspension order under Article 311 of the Constitution.
3. Authority of the High Court to suspend a judicial officer pending final orders from the Government.
4. Requirement for a fresh enquiry by the Government after the High Court's preliminary enquiry.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to Conduct an Enquiry:
The appellant contended that after the Andhra Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1953, came into force on October 1, 1953, only a Tribunal could enquire into charges against government servants drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 150 and above. The High Court of Madras, however, continued the enquiry, which the appellant argued was without jurisdiction. The Court noted that Rule 4 of the Andhra Civil Services Rules, although differing slightly from the Madras Civil Services Rules, did not intend to change the procedure significantly. Moreover, the Rule was amended retrospectively by G.O. No. 938 dated April 11, 1955, to explicitly exclude cases arising in the Judicial Department from being referred to the Tribunal. Therefore, the High Court's jurisdiction to conduct the enquiry remained intact.

2. Validity of the Suspension Order under Article 311:
The appellant argued that only the Governor, as the appointing authority, could dismiss or remove him from service, making the High Court's suspension order void under Article 311 of the Constitution. The Court clarified that the High Court's order dated January 28, 1954, was merely one of suspension pending final orders by the Government, and not an order of dismissal or removal. The ultimate decision regarding dismissal or removal was to be made by the appropriate authority, the Government, which had already issued a notice to the appellant to show cause. Hence, the suspension order did not contravene Article 311.

3. Authority of the High Court to Suspend a Judicial Officer:
The appellant also contended that the High Court lacked the authority to suspend a judicial officer pending final orders from the Government. The Court referred to Rule 13 of the Madras Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, which designates the High Court of Judicature at Madras as the authority to impose suspension pending enquiry into grave charges under Rule 17(e). Consequently, the suspension order was within the High Court's jurisdiction and intra vires.

4. Requirement for a Fresh Enquiry by the Government:
The appellant argued that even if the High Court could conduct a preliminary enquiry, it had no jurisdiction to decide the matter finally, and the Government was required to hold a fresh enquiry. The Court noted that this issue was not raised in the petition or in the High Court and thus declined to entertain it. The findings of Balakrishna Ayyar J. were part of the preliminary enquiry, and the final decision rested with the Government.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the High Court's jurisdiction to conduct the enquiry, the validity of the suspension order, and the High Court's authority to suspend the appellant pending final orders from the Government.