Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard an appeal by special leave against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court arising from writ petitions challenging disciplinary actions taken against government servants who were on deputation to the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. The appellants were conductors and drivers originally appointed under the U.P. Government Roadways, which was headed by the Transport Commissioner. By a notification dated 10 May 1954 under Article 309 of the Constitution, the Transport Commissioner, Deputy Transport Commissioner, General Managers, and Assistant Regional Managers were notified as appointing authorities. Assistant Regional Managers were later redesignated Assistant General Managers and from 1 June 1972 as Assistant Zonal Managers. The Corporation was established from 1 June 1972, and all government servants connected with roadways were deemed to be on deputation with it. Disciplinary actions were taken against some employees by officers who were also government servants on deputation to the Corporation. Some employees filed applications before the tribunal, which allowed them on the ground that as deputationists the State continued to be their employer and the Corporation could not take disciplinary action. The Corporation filed writ petitions in the Allahabad High Court, while some employees filed Writ Petition No. 150 of 1980 challenging suspension. The High Court, by a Full Bench majority, held that deputed government officers who had appointed the delinquent employees or were superior or equal in rank and not subordinate to the appointing authorities were competent to take disciplinary action. The Full Bench directed the tribunal to decide remaining issues and directed Writ Petition No. 150 of 1980 to be listed before a Division Bench. Aggrieved employees appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered whether Article 311 of the Constitution prohibited disciplinary action by authorities not appointed as appointing authorities for government service. The Court held that a government servant remains a government servant while on deputation to foreign service and that the definition of government servant under Rule 9(7-B) of the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules was only for purposes of those rules and irrelevant to Article 311. The Court further held that Article 311 only prohibits dismissal or removal by an authority subordinate in rank to the appointing authority, and does not require that the disciplinary authority be the appointing authority or have current power to appoint. Relying on State of U.P. v. Ram Naresh Lal, the Court reiterated that the State can confer power on any authority not subordinate in rank. It distinguished S.S. Dhanoa v. Municipal Corporation, Delhi as concerning public servant status under the Indian Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure, not employment status under Article 311. The Court held that the deputed officers who took disciplinary action were government servants and not subordinate in rank to appointing authorities, and therefore competent. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Deputation and Status of Government Servant - A government servant continues to remain a government servant while on deputation to a corporation or foreign service; definitions in Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules for purposes of those rules do not affect status under Article 311 of the Constitution - Constitution of India, Article 311; Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules, Rule 9(7-B) - The appellants, government servants on deputation to UPSRTC, challenged disciplinary actions by officers also on deputation, arguing those officers were not serving in connection with affairs of Uttar Pradesh under Rule 9(7-B) and thus not government servants. The Court held the definition was for the rules only and not relevant to Article 311; a government servant remains a government servant on deputation. Held that the deputed officers remained government servants competent to act. B) Service Law - Disciplinary Authority under Article 311 - Article 311 only prohibits dismissal or removal by an authority subordinate in rank to the appointing authority; it does not require the disciplinary authority to be the appointing authority or to have current power of appointment - Constitution of India, Article 311 - The appellants contended that officers on deputation lacked power to make appointments in government service and could not take disciplinary action. The Court held Article 311's only requirement is that the authority not be subordinate in rank to the appointing authority; the State can confer power on any other authority not subordinate. Held that the challenged officers, not subordinate to appointing authorities, were competent. C) Service Law - Deputation and Foreign Service - A government servant remains a government servant even when sent on deputation to foreign service, and decisions under Indian Penal Code Section 21 and Code of Criminal Procedure Section 197 regarding public servant status during deputation do not control Article 311 protection - Constitution of India, Article 311; Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 21; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 197 - The appellants relied on S.S. Dhanoa v. Municipal Corporation, Delhi to argue deputed officers were not government servants. The Court distinguished that case as concerning public servant status for criminal prosecution protection, not employment status under Article 311. Held that deputed officers remained government servants for disciplinary purposes. D) Service Law - Power to Dismiss by Non-Appointing Authority - The State Government may confer power on an officer other than the appointing authority to dismiss a government servant provided he is not subordinate in rank to the appointing authority - Constitution of India, Article 311 - The Court relied on State of U.P. v. Ram Naresh Lal, which held there is nothing in the Constitution debarring Government from conferring power on another officer not subordinate in rank. Held that the High Court's conclusion was correct and the appeal was dismissed. E) Service Law - Road Transport Corporation Act - Section 34 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, which empowers State Government to give directions regarding recruitment and conditions of service, was not necessary to sustain the High Court judgment - Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, Section 34 - The Court found the disciplinary actions valid based on Article 311 alone without resort to Section 34; therefore did not examine its applicability. Held that appeal failed and was dismissed.
Issue of Consideration
Whether disciplinary action could be taken against government servants on deputation to U.P. State Road Transport Corporation by government officers also on deputation to the Corporation, who were not subordinate in rank to the appointing authorities.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the deputed government officers who took disciplinary action were government servants and not subordinate in rank to the appointing authorities, and therefore competent under Article 311 of the Constitution. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Government servant remains government servant while on deputation
- Definition under U.P. Fundamental Rules not relevant for Article 311
- Article 311 only prohibits dismissal by authority subordinate in rank to appointing authority
- State can confer disciplinary power on any authority not subordinate in rank
- Section 34 Road Transport Corporation Act not necessary
