INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO

ABSTRACT
PROJECT TITLE: Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao
ROLL NUMBER: 2016048 & 2016053

INTRODUCTION:
He was born on 7-8-1966 at Hyderabad. He studied SSC in St.Paul’s High School,
Hyderabad, Intermediate course from Little Flower College and B.Sc(Hons) (Mathematics)
from Bhavan’s New Science College, Osmania University. He stood first in the University in
B.Sc. (Hons) Mathematics course. He passed LL.B. from University College of Law,
Osmania University, Hyderabad in 1989 and was awarded CVSS Acharyulu Gold Medal by
the Osmania University for securing highest marks in the final year LL.B.
He enrolled as an Advocate on 7-9-1989. He secured LL.M from the University of
Cambridge, U.K. in 1991. He was awarded the Cambridge Common Wealth Scholarship and
the Bank of Credit and Commerce International Scholarship for study of the LL.M Course at
the Cambridge University, U.K. He was also awarded the Pegasus Scholarship by the
Pegasus Scholarship Trust, Inner Temple, London headed by Lord Goff of Chievely, a
Judicial Member of the House of Lords. Under this Scholarship, he was provided training in
the Brick Court Chambers, Middle Temple, London and in Clifford Chance, a multinational
Solicitor’s firm, London.

He was also appointed by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh as a Special

Government Pleader in the High Court to deal with Urban Land Ceiling Matters. He had
practiced law in the areas of Civil Law, Arbitration, Company Law, Administrative and
Constitutional Law, Labour and Service law.
SUBJECT MATTER: SERVICE

1. K . Srinivas vs. . The AP State Co - operative Bank and Ors; MANU/AP/0141/2015

2. Addagiri Gopal and Ors. Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.
MANU/AP/0062/2016
3. Durga B . Rajnala vs. . Union of India and Ors. MANU/AP/0991/2016
4. Sunil Vs Union of India and Ors. MANU/AP/1003/2016
5. Ch. Chandrasekhar Babu Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, A.P.
MANU/AP/1015/2016
6. K. Aravinda Rao Vs. A. Surender Kumar Das and Ors. MANU/AP/0028/2015
7. Chadalavada Kishan Kumar Vs. Commissioner Of Endowments, Krishna District and
Ors. MANU/AP/0916/2017
8. V.S.R. Krishna Vs APSRTC and Ors. MANU/AP/0486/2017
9. Rao Prameela Rao Vs Visakapatnam Dock Labour Board and Ors.
MANU/AP/0703/2017
10. Assistant Provident fund Commissioner(enforcement), A.P and Ors Vs K.M.R.
Explosives Pvt. Ltd. MANU/AP/0951/2016
 11. Kadapa District Co-operative central bank ltd. Vs P. V. Siva Prasad and Ors.
MANU/AP/0944/2016
12. Vijay Singh Vs. Secy., Home Department And ors. MANU/AP/1116/2016
13. Shaik abdul Kalam Azad and Ors. Vs A. Babu and Ors. MANU/AP/0575/2017
14. Shahi Jamia Mosque Mananging committee Vs. Deshmuk Akbar basha khan and ors.
MANU/AP/0244/2015
15. Mohammad saidulu vs Thummurugoti Sarojanamma and ors. MANU/AP/0244/2015
SUBJECT MATTER: CIVIL
1. K. Purushotham Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, MANU/HY/0353/2018
2. B. Nagaraju Gupta Vs. state Of Andhra Pradesh and Ors, MANU/AP/0262/2018
3. M. V. Kiveli Vs. Monjasa DMCC and Ors MANU/HY/0089/2018
4. Y. venkata Ramana and Ors. Vs. Yellaboyani Venkatamma MANU/AP/0100/2018
5. V. Swaroopa Rani and Ors. Vs. The state of Archaelogical Mueseums Department
And ors. MANU/AP/0216/2017
6. Aruna Sagar And ors. Vs. Shrushti Infrastructure Corporation and ors.
MANU/AP/0956/2015
7. Sakuntalamma Vs K.V. Govindaswamy and Ors. MANU/AP/0482/2015
8. G. L. Purushotham and Ors., Vs. Y. Nagaraju and Ors. MANU/AP/0551/2015
9. A. Bharathi and Ors., Vs. State of Telangana MANU/AP/0838/2016
10. Malla Gowri Devi Vs. D. Ramesh MANU/AP/1123/2016
11. East India Udyog Limited Vs. Mayatas Infra Ltd., MANU/AP/0314/2015
12. Kiran Bansal Vs. T. Chandra kala MANU/AP/0787/2015
13. G. Suverna Bhai Vs. M. Ramesh Chandra Rao and Ors. MANU/AP/0813/2015
14. Talari Satyam Vs. A. Jeevan Reddy MANU/AP/0339/2015
15. E. Venkatarama Naidu and Ors., Vs E. Ramachandra Naidu and Ors.
MANU/AP/0546/2015
Case Name: K. Srinivas Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Co-operative Bank and Ors.
Name of the Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Bench Composition: M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.
Citation: MANU/AP/0141/2015
Subject: Service Matters
Facts:
In this case the petitioner was appointed as staff assistant in undivided Andhra
Pradesh Central Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank on 30.12.1969 and was promoted as
Superintendent on 18.04.1997. The said bank was merged with AP state cooperative Bank
and the petitioners services were transferred to the said bank and utilised as Assistant
Development Officer (Legal assistant). In 1998 he was promoted as junior officer. In a charge
memo issued to the petitioner it was alleged that, while working as ADO in sanga reddy
branch he Scrutinized 76 loan applications and recommended loans by exhibiting gross
negligence causing deficit in security and committed other administrative lapses. It was also
alleged that he is also liable for Rs. 3,67,080 jointly with the members of field inspection and
individually Rs. 8,14,130. The petitioner was asked to submit the expiation regarding the
same within two weeks but he didn’t submit the same to the said authorities. An enquiry was
ordered and the said allegations were not proved in the report. The Persons In-charge
Committee of the Bank issued a show cause notice dt.31-05-2001 to show cause within 15
days The petitioner submitted his explanation rejecting his request for giving an opportunity
for personal hearing and decided to confirm the proposed punishment of demotion to the next
post of Staff Assistant An appeal against the said decision was preferred by the petitioner to
the competent authority i.e. General Body of the Bank. allowed the appeal as regards the
quantum of punishment and directed that the petitioner be placed in the minimum scale of the
post held by him prior to demotion subject to fixation of financial liability. . In the meantime, the
petitioner retired from the service of the Bank with effect from 31-03-2002 on attaining the age of
superannuation. A writ pretition was filed to quash the proceedings of the bank authorities and
violate principles of natural justice; and for grant of all consequential benefits with continuity of
service, increments apart from arrears of pay as Junior Officer/Asst. Development Officer with
interest.

ISSUE:

Whether the disciplinary actions i.e., proceedings are valid or not?

REASONING:

If the enquiry report is in the favour of the officer but the disciplinary authority prposes to
differ with the enquiry report, then that authority, which is deciding authority must be give him
an opportunity of being heard. It is open to the disciplinary authority either to agree with the
findings of the enquiring authority or disagree with the same. Difficulties have arisen in all those
cases in which the enquiring authority has recorded a positive finding that the charges were not
established and the delinquent officer was recommended to be exonerated, but the disciplinary
authority disagreed with those findings and recorded its own findings that the charges were
established and the delinquent officer was liable to be punished.

PRINCIPLE: the disciplinary authority is expected to communicate to the petitioner tentative

reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer, so that the petitioner may further
indicate that the reasons on the basis of which the disciplinary authority proposes to disagree with
the findings recorded by the enquiry authority, are not germane and that the finding that he is not
guilty already recorded by the enquiry authority, was not liable to be interfered with 1. The court
applied literal rule of interpretation to this rule laid down by the supreme court.

CONCLUSION:

Hence the show cause notice dt.31-05-2001 asked the petitioner to show cause why
the proposed punishment of demotion should not be inflicted on him and contained a final
determination by the disciplinary authority that the findings of the enquiry officer are not
correct Since admittedly this requirement of law has not been followed, the decision of the
Committee of Persons In charge of the Bank and general authority of the bank the
proceedings of the said bodies are not valid and quashed
Case Name: Addagiri Gopal and Ors. Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.
Bench Composition: M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J
Citation: MANU/AP/0062/2016
Subject matter: Services
Facts:
In this case two writ petitions were filed by the one petitioner and the respondent
bank. The petitioner was elected as director of the managing committee in the Dharmavaram
Co-operative bank, which was a registered society. The term of the director is 5 years and it
has 10,000 share holders and has 12 directors. A show-cause notice was issued to him for
deliberately not attending to the meeting held on 13.09.2013, 20.09.2013 and 03.10.2013, in
spite of the fact that notices were sent to attend the said meeting. It was also alleged that he
had given a statement to Mee Tv channel, that the bank will become bankrupt and the
depositors should take back their deposits. It also alleged that the petitioner himself had
withdrawn Rs. 12,63,913/- which he had deposited in the Bank by closing his deposit and
crediting it to his Savings account. The petitioner was asked to show-cause why he should not
be removed as a Director of the Bank for these acts within fifteen (15) days from the date of
receipt of the notice. An explanation was submitted by the petitioner through a regd. Post
with acknowledgment. He also denied all the allegations mentioned above. The managing
committee denied his explanation and was disqualified as director as per law. Petitioner field
before dy. Registrar under section 61 of AP co-operatives act, 1964. It was held by the dy.
Registrar that he was not disqualified under section 21B of the act. This order was questioned
by the Bank in O.A. No. 70 of 2014 before the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Tribunal at
Vijayawada under Section 76(1) of the Act. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal confirming
the findings of the Deputy Registrar.

1
Kunj Behari Misra ( 1 supra) and Yoginath D. Bagde (2 supra)
ISSUE:
1. Whether the decision of the Deputy registrar ha legal validity or not?
2. Whether the order of the tribunal should be implemented or not?
3. Whether the petitioner was disqualified under section 21B of the act?
4. Whether the notice should be sent in person or courier ?
Reasoning:
The Deputy Registrar as well as the Tribunal had considered the oral and
documentary evidence on record and came to the conclusion that there was no proper service
of notice on petitioner in the manner prescribed by Rule 23-B and did not accept the plea of
Bank that personal notice was sought to be made on petitioner and petitioner had refused to
receive the notices to attend these three meeti Both the Deputy Registrar and the Tribunal
have held that Rule 23-B requires service of notice of meetings on the Directors/Members of
Managing Committee in person or by registered post acknowledgment due and notice was
not sent by registered post acknowledgment due to petitioner for these three meetings.
Conclusion:
It was well settled rule that since the very notices of the meetings on those three dates
had not been served on petitioner and since there was also no quorum for meetings held on
13.09.2013 and 20.09.2013, neither the Managing Committee can recommend petitioners
disqualification under Section 21B nor can the General Body ratify the same. the notice of the
three meetings was not served on petitioner in accordance with the procedure prescribed
under the Act, and there was no quorum for atleast two of those meetings, the disqualification
of petitioner under Section 21-B by the Managing Committee of the Bank or its ratification
by the General Body are void ab initio. The court applied literal meaning to Rule 23B of the
act.
Case Name: Durga B. Rajnala vs. Union of India and Ors. MANU/AP/0991/2016
Bench composition: M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J
Citation: MANU/AP/0991/2016
Subject Matter: Service
Facts of the Case:
The petitioner was appointed as an ad hoc medical officer in the central Industrial
force (CISF) for six months but the same was extended from time to time with the approval
of department of Personnel and traning, ministry of health and home affairs. On 8.06.1998
she was served a notice saying that no extension would be done after 30.6.1998. she filed
application before central administrative tribunal (CAT). Tribunal gave orders in her favour
to continue her services. The respondents filed writ petition before chattisgarh High court.
The high court dismissed the writ petition by approving the decision of the CAT. The
respondents there after went for appeal in Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
Whether the petitioner, acquired the possession of the employment as she was working for
long period under dynamic assured career progression (DACP)
REASONING:
The High court and tribunal held that the petitioner had worked for a long period, possessed
requisite qualifications and even while being appointed on Ad hoc basis, had been selected by
a Selection Committee and her service could not have been terminated in view of the
exception carved out in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi 2.
On 26.10.2009 Union Public Service Commission had interviewed the petitioner on
28-07-2009 and recommended her Ad hoc appointment in the CISF to the Grade of Medical
Officer with effect from 29-10-1994 and so her Ad hoc appointment to the post of Medical
Officer in the said organization was regularized with effect from 29-10-1994, the date on
which she joined on Ad hoc basis. While the said proceedings were going on the GOI issued
DACP scheme. Under this scheme a medicial officer would be promoted to the post of senior
officer on completion of 4 years of service. A senior officer a Senior Medical Officer with
five years of regular service as such would be promoted to the post of Chief Medical Officer;
and after completion of four years in Chief Medical Officer Grade, he/she would be promoted
to the post of Chief Medical Officer (Non Functional Selection Grade).
CONCLUSION:
It is clear that pursuant to the decision in O.A. No. 474 of 1998 dt. 10-04-2002, the
petitioner had been interviewed by the Union Public Service Commission on 28-07-2009 and
her case was recommended for regular appointment in CISF to the grade of Medical Officer
with effect from 29-10-1994, the date when she joined in the CISF on Ad hoc basis. The
Proceedings dt. 06-10-2009 issued by 2nd respondent stated that matters of promotion,
seniority etc would be regulated by the ITBP which was the Cadre Controlling Authority.
This action of the respondents is clearly arbitrary and illegal and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. Accordingly prtition dismissed.

2
MANU/AP/0991/2016
Case Name: Sunil Vs Union of India and Ors.
Bench Composition: M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J
Citation: MANU/AP/1003/2016
Subject Matter: services
Facts of the Case:
The petitioner is employed as a constable in the CRPF. He was posted as Asst.
Cashier in group centre, CRPF, Hyderabad. On 9.04.2004 he was issued a notice alleging that
the petitioner committed an act of gross negligence and remission in discharge of duty,
because of this one U. Durga Rao a Constable/General Duty, who was performing the duties
in the cash section as helping hand to the cashier and assistant Cashier, fraudulently tampered
transaction of Government money of ` 14,83,104/- by depositing GPF,GIS final payments,
Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity etc relating to various retired personnel on different dates in
the account of his wife Smt. U. Sharada from 3.4.2012 to 13.6.2013. It is alleged that he had
concealed his misdeeds from the Assistant Cashier, Cashier and other supervisory staff. The
petitioner filed a writ petition.
ISSUE:
Whether there any gross negligence on the part of petitioner?
REASONING:
As per Rule 27 (d) (i) of CRPF Rules, if two or more employees are involved in any enquiry,
then a joint enquiry has to be conducted and the petitioner had requested 5th respondent-
enquiry officer to do so on 19-04-2014 itself but the latter has not taken any action." That an
administrative body, which would take a decision causing civil consequences, has to act
without bias is settled law. The disciplinary authority is required to be impartial and unbiased
and the predisposition to decide for or against one party without proper regard to the true
merits of the dispute is bias as held in Secretary to Government
CONCLUSION:
The conduct of the enquiry by respondent would not be an independent enquiry and
that he would be forced to arrive at a conclusion in conformity with that of the respondent
and there is there is a very strong likelihood of the petitioner being found guilty of the
misconduct by respondent. Accordingly the petition was allowed.

Case Name: Ch. Chandrasekhar Babu Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, A.P.
Bench Composition: M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J
Citation: MANU/AP/1015/2016
Subject Matter: Service
Facts of the case:
The petitioners in these matters had been previously employed by the Andhra Bank,
which is the 1st respondent in all these cases. The pertitioners all had suffered orders of
punishment of compulsory retirement from service on different dates. None of the petitioners
had opted for pension within the provided period . under a joint note they had applied for
pension on 27.4.2010 recording an agreement between the Indian officers association on
behalf of managements of banks listed under the All india bank officers
confederation(AIBOC), all India banks officers association(AIBOA), Indian national banks
congress(INBUC), national Organisation of bank officers(NOBO). The petitioners contend
that though there was imposed punishment of compulsory retirement, they still come within
the definition of the term 'retired';
ISSUE:
Whether the compulsory retirement comes under the definition of ‘Retired’?
REASONING:
Separate orders have been passed by the Andhra Bank in respect of each of the petitioners
holding that they were not eligible to exercise the option for pension as per the Joint Memo.
In these orders, the Andhra Bank contended that the petitioners had not retired from service
of the Bank voluntarily under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme introduced by the said Bank
in the year 2000, and they had also not retired on superannuation.
(1) Those in the service of the bank prior to 29.09.1995 in case of Nationalised
Banks/26.03.1996. In case of Associate Banks of State Bank of India and continue in the
service of the bank on the date of this Joint Note;
(2) Those who were in service for the same period, as aforesaid, but retired after that date and
prior to the date of this Joint Note;
(3) Family of such officers who were in the service of the bank on the aforesaid dates but
retired after that date and had died will be eligible for family pension;
(4) Family of such officers who were in the service of the bank prior to the dates aforesaid,
but have died while in service of the bank after that date will be eligible for family pension."
CONCLUSION:
It held that the Joint Note as well as the Circular refers to the retirees from the Bank and the
word 'retiree' is a generic term including all categories of retirees. It held that restricting the
meaning of the said word only to those who retired voluntarily or on superannuation is not
only against the object and purpose of the agreement under the Joint Note and the Circular,
but would also amount to reading something else therein.
The court applied principle of ejusdem generis.

Case Name: K. Aravinda Rao Vs. A. Surender Kumar Das and Ors.
Bench Composition: M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J
Citation: MANU/AP/0028/2015
Subject Matter: Service
Facts of the Case:
 In this case the petitioner is appellant. The 1st respondent is Dy. Superintendent of
police selected in Group-I, which was conducted by APPSC in 1987. He was later promoted
as Add. Superintendent of police and then as superintendent of police. He was then promoted
as IPS in 2002. He mentioned that he belongs to SC community. The 1st respondent felt that
he was discriminated on caste basis for the post of Dy. Commissioner of police by violating
the principles of natural justice and equality. He alleged that the appellant who was then DGP
gave false information to CM. He lodged a complaint on 3.1.2009 along with 2nd respondent
alleging that appellant was guilty of committing an offence under S.C and S.T.( prevention of
atrocities) act, 1955. the 1st respondent wrote a letter dt. 28.02.2009 to the 2nd respondent
stating that under Section 154 Cr.P.C. r/w Rules - 5, 6 and 7 of the SC & ST (POA) Rules,
1995, the 2nd respondent, as Station House Officer, is expected to register a case
immediately after receipt of a complaint and issue a copy of FIR to 1st respondent since what
was stated in the complaint dt. 3.1.2009 against the appellant amounts to a cognizable offence
and start investigation immediately.

Name of the Case: Chadalavada Kishan Kumar Vs. Commissioner Of Endowments, Krishna
District and Ors.
Bench Composition: M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J
Citation: MANU/AP/0916/2017
Subject Matter: Service
Facts of the case:
The petitioner has filed the Writ Petition assailing the order dt. 09.06.2017 passed by
the 1st respondent directing removal of the petitioner as Archaka of the 2nd respondent-
temple, and the consequential order dt. 14.06.2017 passed by the Assistant Commissioner-
cum-Executive Officer of the 2nd respondent-temple. The admitted facts are that the
petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from 12.05.2016 to 22.05.2016 and was in
police/judicial custody from 23.05.2016 till 30.05.2016, since he was arrested in Crime No.
145 of 2016 registered under Section 336 I.P.C. (women missing), filed by the mother of a
missing woman on 13.05.2016. Initially, five charges were framed against the petitioner
1. Without giving prior information to the temple authorities and Chef Archaka absent from
duty is treated as negligence shown in duties.
2. In the temple not performing archaka duty behaving according to your will.
3. From 12.05.2016 to 22.05.2016 (11 days) without giving any prior information absent
from duty will be treated as negligence of duty.
4. No changes took place in your behaviour is the negligence in your duty performance.
5. 2016 awarding punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect, no
changes took place in your style.
Additional charges:
1. In archaka profession against you in the Pedakakani Police Station vide Cr. No. 145/2016
dt. 13.5.2016 U/s. 336 IPC regd. the woman missing case and remanded to Guntur sub-jail on
23.5.2016 till issue of this notice and you were in remand is against the Endowments Act
30/87.
2. You are in respected archaka profession facing such woman missing case is the remark to
the profession itself and against the Endowments Act,
on the basis of the enquiry report the petitioner was removed from the post of archaka. The
same was challenged by him by filing writ petition.
ISSSUE:
Whether the order given by the executive officer was valid?
REASONING:
There was no documentary evidence in the enquiry. no notice of the enquiry was
served on him by the enquiry officer. e did not receive the charge-memo as it was served on
his father who is living in the same house as he is living. no charge-sheet is filed in the said
criminal case till date. Therefore, though involvement in the criminal case could be a ground
to suspend the petitioner, the same cannot be a ground to remove the petitioner from service.
CONCLUSION:
Hence it was held that, the orders given by the executive officer were set aside.
Accordingly the petition was allowed.

Name of the Case: V.S.R. Krishna Vs APSRTC and Ors. MANU/AP/0486/2017

Bench Composed: M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J
Citation: MANU/AP/0486/2017
Subject Matter: Service
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was employed as a conductor in the APSRTC , Machilipatnam Deport.
It was alleged that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from 9.5.2007. a charge memo
was issued to the petitioner by stating that
1. For having unauthorised absent without any intimation or sanction
2. For taking 18 days leave, reported sick for 63 days and absent for 90 days during
2005 to 2006
3. For having produced govt. hospital sick from 9.05.2007 to 15.05.2007 to cover
absenteeism
There was no explanation for the said memo by the petitioner. An enquiry was held. The
enquiry report held that the charges were proved. A copy of the report was sent to the
petitioner.