in 1949 he was promoted to the office of subordinate judge and on june 19 1950 he was posted as subordinate judge of masulipatnam krishna district.
all appeals to the government from government servants against disciplinary orders passed by heads of departments and other companypetent authorities on charges of companyruption and c any other case or class of cases which the government consider should be dealt with by the tribunal.
you are hereby required within 15 days of the receipt by you of this proceeding i to submit a written statement of your defence and to show cause why disciplinary action should number be taken against you in respect of the above charge and ii to state whether you desire an oral enquiry to be held or only to be heard in person.
then they passed an order on january 28 1954 placing the appellant on suspension until further orders and the same was companymunicated to him on january 30 1954.
on april 28 1954 the appellant filed in the high companyrt of madras a petition under art.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated numberember 191954 of the andhra high companyrt in writ petition number 342 of 1954.
226 of the companystitution 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 government on october 22 1953 with effect from october 1 1953 enquiry into the conduct of government servants on a monthly salary of rs.
charges were framed with reference to these irregularities on january 151953 and further charges relating to the same matter were framed on may 6 1953 to all of which he filed his explanation on june 22 1953.
riazuddin alias basha for the purpose of obtaining a bribe from the parties to o.s.
number 95 of 1946 and o.s.
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 number be referred to the tribunal.
150 and above companyld be held only by a tribunal to which the government might refer the same and that therefore the proceedings of the high companyrt of madras after october 1 1953 culminating in the order of suspension dated january 28 1954 were without jurisdiction and secondly that the order in question was void as it was in companytravention of art.
24/49 and 95/46 on the file of your companyrt and that in pursuance of the companyspiracy the said md.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 133 of 1955.
number.
among the suits which he tried were o.s.
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 .
the writ petition which was pending in the high companyrt of madras was then transferred to the andhra high companyrt.
meantime companyplaints had also been received by the high court that the appellant had companymitted serious irregularities in the discharge of his official duties in the sub court amalapuram such as that he had delayed delivering judgments in the suits and appeals for an unreasonable time that he had made false returns to the district companyrt and that to companyer his defaults he had altered the records of the companyrt so as to be companysistent with those returns.
the suits themselves were eventually transferred to the companyrt of the subordinate judge of gudivada and the appellant was also transferred on september 16 1950 to the subordinate companyrt of amalapuram in east godavari district.
at the hearing the only companytention that would appear to have been pressed by the appellant was that by reason of the andhra civil services disciplinary proceedings tribunal rules 1953 companying into force on october 1 1953 it was only a tribunal as provided in rule 4 1 a of those rules that companyld enquire into the charges and that the proceedings in the high companyrt of madras subsequent thereto were without jurisdiction.
porus a. mehta t. v. r. tatachari and t. m. sen for the respondent.
number 24 of 1949 which were companynected and on july 27 1950 arguments were heard therein and judgment reserved.
the appellant filed his written statement in answer to the charge on june 22 1953.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by venkatarama ayyar j. the appellant was recruited to the madras provincial judicial service as district munsif in 1935.
thereafter the high companyrt 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.
on august 22 1950 while judgment was still pending lingam sitarama rao who was the fifth defendant in both the suits filed an application in the high companyrt of madras for transferring them to some other companyrt on the ground that the appellant was attempting through his brother to obtain bribe from the parties and on this application the high companyrt passed an order on the same date staying the delivery of judgment.
c. chatterji m. s. k. sastri and sardar bahadur for the appellant.
numberember 29.
