9911796707
TMI Blog1956 (11) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h his brother to obtain bribe from the parties, and on this application, the High Court passed an order on the same date, staying the delivery of judgment. The suits themselves were eventually transferred to the court of the Subordinate Judge of Gudivada, and the appellant was also transferred on September 16, 1950, to the Subordinate Court of Amalapuram in East Godavari District. Thereafter, the High Court started investigation into the allegations made in the affidavit in the stay petition, and as a result of the enquiries and reports received, the following charge was framed against the appellant on April 2, 1953: " That you in or about August 1950 being at that time Additional Sub-Judge, Masulipatnam, entered into a conspiracy with your brother Md. Riazuddin alias Basha for the purpose of obtaining a bribe from the parties to O.S. Nos. 24/49 and 95/46 on the file of your Court, and that, in pursuance of the conspiracy, the said Md. Riazuddin at Vijayawada attempted between 11 -8-1950 and 13-8-1950 to obtain a bribe from Lingam Satya Narayana Rao and his son Lingam Seetarama Rao (the 5th defendant in both the above suits). You are hereby required within 15 days of the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al officer who systematically sends false returns is guilty of moral turpitude. If in addition 'he instructs members of his office to make false entries-in the records of the court he would be guilty of even more blameworthy conduct. One would hardly desire to keep such persons in service." These reports were considered at a meeting of the Judges of the Madras High Court on January 25,1954, and they decided that "the proper punishment to be awarded to the officer as regards the two counts are (1) regarding the first charge of bribery, dismissal from service and (2) regarding the second charge of various delinquencies, such as delaying judgments, etc., removal from service." Then they passed an order on January 28, 1954, placing the appellant on suspension until further orders, and the same was communicated to him on January 30, 1954. On April 28, 1954, the appellant filed in the High Court of Madras a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, for a writ quashing the order of suspension dated January 28, 1954, on the grounds, firstly, that under the Andhra Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1953, which had been published by the Andhra G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1953, the High Court had ceased to have jurisdiction to proceed with the matter, it is necessary first to refer to the relevant Rules. Rule 4 of the Madras Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1948, which was the Rule in force when the enquiry against the appellant was started, runs as follows: 4." The Government may, subject to the provisions of rule 5, refer to the Tribunal:- (a) Cases relating to Government servants on a monthly salary. of ₹ 150 and above, in respect of matters involving corruption on the part of such Government servants in the discharge of their official duties. (b) All appeals to the Government from Government servants against disciplinary orders passed by heads of departments and other competent authorities on charges of corruption, and (c) any other case or class of cases which the Government consider, should be dealt with by the Tribunal. Provided that cases arising in the Judicial Department and against Government servants in the subordinate ranks of police forces of the rank of Sub-Inspector and below shall not be referred to the Tribunal. " The corresponding Rule in the Andhra Civil Services (Disciplinary Proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e (2). While, on the one hand, there is force in the contention of the appellant that having regard to its setting, the proviso should more properly be read as qualifying subrule (2), we are inclined to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that, read as a whole, the Rule does not show an intention to depart from the procedure laid down in the Madras Civil Services Rules. The point, however, is one of academic interest, as the Rule in question has subsequently been amended by G. 0. No. 938 dated April 11, 1955, and it expressly provides that the amendment shall be deemed to have come into force on October 1, 1953. That amendment is as follows: " In rule 4 of the said rules, the proviso occurring after sub-rule (2) shall be omitted, and in lieu thereof, the following sub-rule shall be inserted, namely: (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in subrule (1) or sub-rule (2), the following cases shall not be referred to the Tribunal, namely: (i) cases arising in the Judicial Department; and (ii) 'cases arising against Government servants in the subordinate ranks of the Police forces of the rank of Sub- Inspector and below, unless the cases are against them togethe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
