1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of theHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh dated December 13, 1960, dismissing Writ PetitionNo. 46 of 1960. The petitioner is the appellant before us. The respondents tothis appeal are the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Chairman of theTribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Andhra Pradesh. The appellant was aservant in the Hyderabad Revenue Service and in 1956 was holding the post ofDeputy Secretary to the Government in the Public Works Department. On a reportsubmitted by the C.I.D. the Government of Andhra Pradesh ordered an inquiryunder s. 4 of the Hyderabad Public Servants (Tribunal of Enquiry) Act, 1950 (HyderabadAct No. XXIII of 1950) by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings. TheTribunal enquired into 19 charges and submitted its report on July 11, 1959.The Tribunal found 4 charges proved and in view of the first charge whichinvolved acceptance of a bribe and charge No. 14 which related to tamperingwith official records, the Tribunal recommended that the appellant be dismissedfrom service. After due notice to the appellant the Government of AndhraPradesh ordered the dismissal of the appellant. The appellant thereupon moved apetition under Article 226 of the Constitution requesting that the order passedby Government be quashed. The appellant, inter alia, contended that under theHyderabad Police Servants (Tribunal of Enquiry) Act, 1950, the Tribunal couldonly consist of persons who were judicial officers employed as Sessions Judgesin the territory of India for a period of not less than 3 years. He contendedthat though the enquiry had properly commenced before Mr. R. Bhaskara Rao, whofunctioned as the Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal up to April 19, 1959, hewas succeeded by Mr. M. Sriramamurthy who was not qualified but who heard thearguments and submitted the report. He contended that Mr. Sriramamurthy had notheld the office of a Sessions Judge for three years. The only question, whichwas considered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, was whether in thecircumstances Mr. Sriramamurthy was disqualified to act as the Tribunal. TheHigh Court held that in view of the provisions of the States Reorganisation Actand the Notification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh on November 1,1956, by which the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings in Andhra Pradesh wasnamed as the authority to function under the Hyderabad Public Servants (Tribunalof Enquiry) Act, 1950, Mr. Sriramamurthy was competent to exercise functionsexercisable under the Hyderabad Act. The High Court accordingly dismissed thepetition.
2. It is contended by Mr. Vishwanath Sastri that the appointment of Mr.Sriramamurthy was incompetent because he was not qualified to act as theTribunal of Enquiry under the Hyderabad Act. We are concerned with theHyderabad Act and the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (Act No. XXXVII of 1956).The relevant provisions of the first Act are Sections 3 and 4 and they may now beseen. Section 3 of the Hyderabad Public Servants (Tribunal of Enquiry) Act1950, in so far as it is material, read as follows :-
'3. (1) A Tribunalconsisting of one or more members shall be constituted for the purpose of thisAct.
(2) Every member of the Tribunalshall be a judicial officer who has been employed as a Sessions Judge in theterritory of India for a period of not less than threeyears.................'
3. Section 4 read as follows :-
'4. Government may, and in such cases, if any asmay be prescribed, shall refer to the Tribunal for enquiry and report any caseinvolving an allegation of misconduct or inefficiency or disloyalty on the partof a public servant.'
4. The corresponding provisions in the State of Andhra before the formationof the State of Andhra Pradesh were the Andhra Civil Services (DisciplinaryTribunal) Rules, 1953, which were made under the proviso to Art. 309 of theConstitution. Under those Rules which came into force on October 1, 1953, it wasprovided :-
'3. (a) The Tribunal shall consist of one Judicialofficer of the status of District and Sessions Judge.'
5. It is admitted that Mr. M. Sriramamurthi held the qualification underthis Rule.
6. On November 1, 1956, the State of Andhra Pradesh was formed by theamalgamation, among others, of portions of Hyderabad State with the State ofAndhra. The States Reorganisation Act contemplating the existence of diverselaws on the same subject in the integrated units provided for the conflict oflaws. Under s. 115 which related to services it was provided that every personwho immediately before the appointed day was serving in connection with theaffairs of an existing State, parts of whose territories were transferred toanother State, would from that date provisionally continue to serve inconnection with the affairs of the successor State to that existing Stateunless he was required to serve provisionally in connection with the affairs ofany other successor State. Under this section the appellant automatically beganto serve the successor State, namely, the State of Andhra Pradesh. Section 120gave the power to the State Government to adapt laws. It provided that theGovernment of the succeeding State could make adaptations and modifications ofthe law of an existing State whether by way of repeal or amendment, as may benecessary or expedient, and after such adaptations, every such law was to haveeffect until altered, repealed or amended by a competent Legislature or othercompetent authority. Section 121 gave a special power to Courts, Tribunals andauthorities to construe the laws where no provision or insufficient provisionhas been made for the adaptation of a law to facilitate the application of thelaw in relation to any State newly formed though without affecting thesubstance of the matter. Section 122 then provided as follows :-
'122. The CentralGovernment, as respects any Part C State, and the State Government as respectsany new State or any transferred territory, may be notification in the OfficialGazette specify the authority, officer or person who, as from the appointedday, shall be competent to exercise such functions exercisable under any law inforce on that day as may be mentioned in that notification and such law shallhave effect accordingly.'
7. Finally, section 127 read as follows :-
'127. The provisions of this Act shall have effectnotwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any otherlaw.'
8. It will, therefore, be seen that the States Reorganisation Act applieseven if it is inconsistent with anything in the Hyderabad Public Servants(Tribunal of Enquiry) Act, 1950. By reason of s. 127 and the power granted bys. 122 it was competent to the Government of Andhra Pradesh to name an authorityunder the Hyderabad Act even though that authority might not have beenqualified under the latter Act. The concluding words of s. 122 'shall becompetent to exercise such functions exercisable under any law in force on thatday as may be mentioned in that notification and such law shall have effectaccordingly' show that on the notification issuing under s. 122 theexisting law itself is to have effect in a different manner.
9. The argument of Mr. Vishwanath Sastri that before the Hyderabad Act couldbe departed from, it had to be adapted under s. 120 by substituting anauthority different from that named in s. 3 therefore might have been effectiveif s. 122 had not concluded in the manner indicated above. Section 122 by itsvery terms makes the Hyderabad Act speak in accordance with a notificationissued under s. 122. That Act after the notification applies in accordance withthe notification and pro tanto is adapted by the Notification. In our opinionadaptation of the Hyderabad Act under s. 120 was not a condition precedent tothe issuance of the Notification and the Notification having issued theHyderabad Act applied accordingly and the appointment of Mr. Sriramamurthy was thereforevalid. We agree with the High Court in its conclusion. The appeal fails and isdismissed with costs.
10. Appeal dismissed.