D. Subba Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
- SCC(1975) 4 SCC 808
- AIRAIR 1975 SC 94
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an officer holding elected public office challenges removal on the ground that no hearing was afforded before the removal order, the court may direct that the removal order be provisionally maintained but the officer be given a fresh opportunity to make representations against the charges before the government considers the matter afresh and passes a final order, rather than adjudicate the merits of the removal itself.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. The appellant was elected as the president of the panchyat samithi of Bapatla on July 18, 1970. The Government for reasons set out in its communication, issued a show-cause notice dated the 26th September, 1972 asking the president to submit an explanation within 21 days of the receipt of that notice why he should not be removed. Thereafter, various communications and other proceedings took place with which we are not concerned in the light of the final order that we are passing. We have suggested a course to the parties, which counsel fairly agreed, was reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
2. The appellant has contended that the order removing him from his office as the president was passed without hearing him and the respondent State has contested his ground taking up the stand that an opportunity has been afforded but has not been taken advantage of. We are not going into the merits of the matter, because we feel that the ends of justice would be served by the following direction:-
3. The order impugned will be provisionally maintained, hut the appellant will be given an opportunity by the State Government to make his representation against the charges set out in the notice dated the 26th September, 1972, within six weeks from today. The appellant will be given an opportunity to peruse the relevant records within three weeks from today. The representation made by the appellant will be considered afresh by the State Government and on such a consideration, it will pass an order affirming, modifying or cancelling the order dated the 6th January, 1973.
4. Till the second order is passed, status quo will continue, in the sense that the vice-president, who is now discharging the functions of the president will continue to do so and no fresh by-election will be held. The second order that the State Government passes will not preclude the seeking of remedies under the law, if any.
5. The appeal is disposed of as above. The parties will bear their own costs in this Court.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free