Supreme Court Upholds State Government's Power to Enquire Against Indian Civil Service Officer Under Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850. The phrase 'not removable from his appointment without the sanction of the Government' in Section 2 of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 refers to removal from the post, not the service, enabling the Punjab Government to order enquiry against an officer employed under it.

Case Note & Summary

The case concerned a challenge to an inquiry ordered by the Punjab Government against an Indian Civil Service officer under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850. The appellant, R.P. Kapur, joined the Indian Civil Service in 1938 and had been employed under the Punjab Government since 1948. On May 26, 1961, the Governor of Punjab ordered a formal and public inquiry against him under Section 2 of the Act. Aggrieved, he filed a writ petition in the Punjab High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that the Punjab Government lacked competence to order the inquiry because he was not removable from his appointment without the sanction of the Government of India. The High Court dismissed the petition on August 9, 1961, and the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. During the appeal hearing before a Bench of the Supreme Court, a question arose regarding the proper construction of Section 2 of the Act. Section 2 required three conditions before a formal and public inquiry could be ordered: first, the Government must be of opinion that there were good grounds; second, the inquiry could be directed only against a person in the service of that Government; third, the person must not be removable from his appointment without the sanction of that Government. While the first two conditions were conceded or found satisfied, the third condition was contested. The Bench referred to a larger Bench the question of the meaning of the phrase 'not removable from his appointment without the sanction of the Government.' The appellant argued that as an Indian Civil Service officer, he could only be removed from service by the Government of India, not by the Punjab Government, and therefore the third condition was not met. The respondents contended that the phrase referred to removal from the particular post or office held under the Punjab Government, not removal from the Indian Civil Service as a whole, and that Section 23 of the Act supported the Punjab Government's competence to inquire. The larger Bench delivered a divided opinion. The majority (Das Acting C.J., Gajendragadkar, Sarkar, and Hidayatullah JJ.) held that the third condition was satisfied. They reasoned that Section 23 furnished the key to determining which Government should hold the inquiry. Where an officer is in the service of one Government but employed under another, the competent Government is the one under which the officer is employed at the time. The expression 'in the service of that Government' in Section 2 was equivalent to 'employed under that Government.' The word 'appointment' was interpreted to mean a post, station, or office, not the entire service; 'removal' meant loss of the post, station, or office, not loss of service. Thus, even though the appellant could not be removed from the Indian Civil Service except by the Government of India, he held an office under the Punjab Government and could be removed from that office by the Punjab Government, satisfying the third condition. The majority also noted that a contrary construction would prevent any Government from holding an inquiry against officers on deputation, as the Central Government could not inquire because they were employed under a State Government, and the State Government could not inquire because they were not removable from service by it. The minority (Wanchoo, Das Gupta, and Ayyangar JJ.) dissented, holding that the third condition required that the Government ordering the inquiry must be competent to remove the officer from his appointment in the sense of terminating his employment. They found that the State of Punjab was not capable of removing the appellant from his appointment in the Indian Civil Service, and therefore the condition was not satisfied. They emphasised that the basic purpose of the Act was to allow inquiry only by the government having disciplinary control and power to punish by removal. By majority, the Court held that the Punjab Government was competent to direct the inquiry against the appellant under Section 2 of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850. The reference was accordingly answered in favour of the Punjab Government.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

By majority, the Supreme Court held that the third condition in Section 2 of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 was satisfied and that the Punjab Government was competent to direct the inquiry against the appellant. The phrase 'not removable from his appointment without the sanction of the Government' refers to removal from the post, station, or office, not from the service. The minority dissented, holding that the State of Punjab was not the appropriate Government because it lacked power to remove the appellant from his appointment in the Indian Civil Service.

Law Points