N.J. Probhakar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 593 of 1985
Petitioner: N.J. Probhakar
Respondent: State of Andhra Pradesh
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 593 of 1985
Judges:
Date of Judgment: Sep 14, 1987
Head Note:
CIVIL SERVICE
Constitution of India, 1950; Article 271-D(5) – Tribunal directed reinstatement of appellant to service – State Govt. annulled the order of Tribunal – Exercise of power of annulment not available to the State Govt. – Decision of Tribunal restored.
Cases Reffered:
1. P. Sambamurthy & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., AIR 1987 SC 663 = JT 1987(1) S.C. 20.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is a case where the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal decided in favour of the appellant and directed his reinstatement to service. Later, the State Government annulled the order in exercises of power vested under Article 271-D(5) of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in P. SAMBAMURTHY & ORS VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. (AIR 1987 SC 663), the power of annulment vested in the state Government was not available to be worked out and, therefore, the annulment has to be quashed. Quashing of the annulment would bring about restoration of the order of the Tribunal, Mr. Chari appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh contends that during the pendency of this appeal, an interlocutary order has been made made by this court directing a fresh enquiry to be made against the appellant and different orders were made from time to time to implement that direction. He points out that the final order in such a proceeding has brought about dismissal of the appellants and Mr. Chari says that in view of that order, the Tribunal’s order to restore the appellants to service cannot now be given effect to.
2. We are not in a position to accept his submission. If annulment had been effected – that annulment has now found to be nullity – there would have been no scope for this appeal to be carried in this Court and the interlocutary order could not have been made to ultimately bring about a reversal of the situation.
3. The principle well known to law that where the foundation falls the super structure too must go applies to the situation. That being the position, we are not prepared to agree with Mr. Chari’s submission and deprive the appellant of the benefit conferred on him under the decision of Tribunal.
4. The appeal succeeds and we direct that the Tribunal’s order will now be given effect to. No costs.
Appeal allowed.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is a case where the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal decided in favour of the appellant and directed his reinstatement to service. Later, the State Government annulled the order in exercises of power vested under Article 271-D(5) of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in P. SAMBAMURTHY & ORS VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. (AIR 1987 SC 663), the power of annulment vested in the state Government was not available to be worked out and, therefore, the annulment has to be quashed. Quashing of the annulment would bring about restoration of the order of the Tribunal, Mr. Chari appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh contends that during the pendency of this appeal, an interlocutary order has been made made by this court directing a fresh enquiry to be made against the appellant and different orders were made from time to time to implement that direction. He points out that the final order in such a proceeding has brought about dismissal of the appellants and Mr. Chari says that in view of that order, the Tribunal’s order to restore the appellants to service cannot now be given effect to.
2. We are not in a position to accept his submission. If annulment had been effected – that annulment has now found to be nullity – there would have been no scope for this appeal to be carried in this Court and the interlocutary order could not have been made to ultimately bring about a reversal of the situation.
3. The principle well known to law that where the foundation falls the super structure too must go applies to the situation. That being the position, we are not prepared to agree with Mr. Chari’s submission and deprive the appellant of the benefit conferred on him under the decision of Tribunal.
4. The appeal succeeds and we direct that the Tribunal’s order will now be given effect to. No costs.
Appeal allowed.
