STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v. SHARDUL SINGH
Citation: [1970] 3 S.C.R. 302; 1969 INSC 333
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: J.C. SHAH , K.S. HEGDE
Judgment date:
Case summary
1969 INSC 333. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1969-12-02. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v. SHARDUL SINGH. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ( 1970) 3 S. C. R. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v. SHARDUL SINGH December 2, 1969 (J. C. SHAH AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ. ] Constitution of India, Art. 311(1)-J/ the Authority e1npowered to . di. Hniss . 'fhou/d itself iuitiate or conduct the enquiry-Article 309, proviso, ---·'Conditions of service", meG-ning of. The Superintendent of Police jnitiatcd a departmental inquiry against the respondent, who was a Sub-Inspector, with respect to certain charges, found him guilty, and forwarded the ! report to the Inspector-General of Police, who was the authority competent to dismiss him for necessary action. The Inspector-General sent a copy of the report to 'the respondent, 1. :alled upon him to show cause against the proposed punishment of dis-n1issal, considered his explanation, and passed an order dismissing him. The procedure followed was in accordance with Regulations 228 and 229 -of th~ Ce'i1tral Provinces and Bcrar Police Regulations framed under s.
241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, corresponding to Art. 309 of the Constitution. On the question whether the Regulations were ultra vires because, undel' Art. 311, the authority empowered to dismiss (in this case the Jnspector~Gcneral) must have himself initiated or conducted the inquiry preceding the -dismissal, · HELD : Under the proviso to Art. 309. power is conferred on the Prcsi ts in connection with the affairs of the State to make rules regulating the recruitment. and the conditions. of service of persons appointed, to such services and posts until provision in that behalf is made by or under an Act of the appropriate Legislature under this article, and any rules so made shall have effect subject to the provisions of any such Act. " One of the powers conferred undir this proviso is to make rules regulating the conditions of service of persons appointed to civil services of the Union or the State as the case may be. The expression "conditi.
ons of service" is an expression of wide import. As pointed by this Court in Pradyat Kumar Bose v. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court ('), the dismissal of an official is a matter :which falls within "conditions of service" of public servants. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 2 North West Frontier Province v. Suraj Narain Anand ( ), took the view that a right of dismissal is a condition of service within the' meaning of the words under s. 243 of the Government of llidia Act, 1935. Lord Thankerton speaking for the Board observed therein : "apart from consideration whether the context indi-cates a special significance to the expression 'conditions of service' their Lordshios are unable irt the absence of any such special significance, to regard provisions (! ) [t955] 2 S. C. R. 1331. (2) [1948] L. R. 75 I. A. 343.
which prescribe the circumstances under which the employer is to be entitled to terminate the service as otherwise than conditions of the service, whether these provisions are contractual or statutory; they are therefore of opinion that the natural meaning of the expression would include such provisions. " ll In P. Balakotaiah v. The Union of lr. dia and Ors. (') this Court proceeded on the basis that a rule providing for the termination of the s·~rvicc of a railway official can be made in exercise of the powers conferred on the Government by ss. 241 (2), 247 and 263(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935. The expression 'conditions of service' means all those conditions which regulate the holding of a post by a person right from the time of his appointment till his retirement and even beyond it in matters like pension etc .. But for the incorporation of Art. 311 in the Constitution even in r~spect of matters· provided therein, rules could have been framed under Art. 309.
The provisions in Art. 311 confer additional rights 011' the civil servants. Hence we are unable to agree with the High Court that the guarantee given under Art. 311 ( 1) includes within itself a furth~r guarantee that th. e disciplinary proceedings resulting in dismissal or removal of a civil servant ;hould also be initiated and conducted by the authorities mentioned in that Article. F. In the result this appeal is allowed, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the writ petition dismissed .. In the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs. Y. P. Appeal allowed. ( l) [19581 S. C. R. 1052.
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.