Case Note & Summary
The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed to the Supreme Court against the order of the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal which had quashed a departmental enquiry against the respondent, Dr. Yashwant Trimbak, a retired government servant. The respondent had retired as Director, Institute of Animal Health & Veterinary Biological Products, Mhow, on 31 July 1983. His retiral benefits were sanctioned, but subsequently gross financial irregularities during his tenure from 1977 onwards came to light. A letter proposing an enquiry was issued on 6 April 1985, followed by a charge sheet on 2 April 1986. A departmental enquiry was ordered and the appropriate authority withheld 50 per cent of his pension and a part of his gratuity. The respondent challenged these actions before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which transferred the matter to the Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the enquiry was instituted without proper sanction as required by Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976, because the sanction of the Governor himself was necessary, not that of the Council of Ministers. It quashed the departmental proceedings and the order withholding pension. The State appealed. The Supreme Court framed two questions: first, whether an order initiating departmental proceeding, passed in the name of the Governor and duly authenticated, can be challenged in view of Article 166(2) of the Constitution; and second, whether the power to sanction under Rule 9(2)(b)(i) can be exercised by the Council of Ministers through Business Rules under Article 166(3). The Court examined the first question. It found that the order served on the respondent was expressed in the name of the Governor and duly authenticated by the Under Secretary. It held that such an order cannot be questioned in any court on the ground that it is not made or executed by the Governor. The signature of the authorised officer signifies the consent of the Governor and acceptance of the advice of the Minister. The Court rejected the respondent's argument that because the Governor personally did not sanction, the bar under Article 166(2) was not attracted. It relied on the earlier decision in The State of Bihar v. Rani Sonabati Kumari, 1961(1) S.C.R. 728. The Court thus held that the bar under Article 166(2) applied and the Tribunal erred in examining the validity of the sanction. The appeal was allowed and the Tribunal's order was set aside, thereby upholding the departmental enquiry and the withholding of pension.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Executive Powers of Governor and Authentication of Orders - Article 166(2) Constitution of India - An order expressed in the name of the Governor and duly authenticated by a Secretary or Under Secretary cannot be questioned in any court on the ground that it is not made or executed by the Governor - The signature of the authorised officer signifies the consent of the Governor and acceptance of the advice of the Minister - The respondent's argument that the Governor being the sanctioning authority and not having personally sanctioned, the bar under Article 166(2) is not attracted, was rejected - Held that the bar under Article 166(2) applies to an order initiating departmental proceeding passed in the name of Governor and duly authenticated, and its validity cannot be challenged on ground of absence of personal sanction (Paras 7-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order initiating departmental proceeding, passed in the name of Governor and duly authenticated, can be challenged in court in view of Article 166(2) of Constitution; and whether power to sanction under Rule 9(2)(b)(i) can be exercised by Council of Ministers under Article 166(3).
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the bar under Article 166(2) of the Constitution applied to the order initiating departmental proceeding, which was expressed in the name of the Governor and duly authenticated, and therefore its validity could not be challenged on the ground that it was not made by the Governor personally. The appeal was allowed and the Tribunal's order was set aside.
Law Points
- An order expressed in the name of the Governor and duly authenticated cannot be questioned in any court on the ground that it is not made or executed by the Governor under Article 166(2)
- signature of authorised officer signifies consent of Governor and acceptance of Minister's advice
- Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules
- 1976 requires sanction of Governor for instituting departmental proceedings after retirement
