Supreme Court Upholds High Court Quashing Disciplinary Proceedings Initiated Under Rule 55 Civil Services Rules Without Granting Gazetted Officer's Request to Refer Case to Administrative Tribunal. Rule 4(2) of U.P. Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947 imposes an obligation on the Governor to refer a gazetted government servant's case to the Tribunal upon request, and the word 'may' in that sub-rule means 'shall'.

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from disciplinary proceedings initiated against a Naib Tehsildar employed by the State of Uttar Pradesh. The respondent, Jogendra Singh, was appointed in 1937 and suspended on August 4, 1952, following complaints, with charges referred to the Administrative Tribunal under the U.P. Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947. The Tribunal exonerated him in August 1953. While those proceedings were pending, the appellant State received additional complaints against the respondent and communicated them to the Tribunal, indicating that further charges would be sent; however, the Tribunal completed the existing inquiry without waiting. Consequently, the respondent was again suspended on October 28, 1955, and charges based on the additional complaints were delivered to him on October 29, 1956. On November 12, 1956, he submitted an explanation and requested that the inquiry be entrusted to the Administrative Tribunal in accordance with the Rules. On June 28, 1958, the Deputy Secretary, Board of Revenue, informed him that the State had rejected his request and entrusted the case to the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, for disciplinary proceedings under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. The respondent filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court on July 14, 1958, seeking to quash those proceedings. A single judge allowed the writ, holding that the respondent, being a gazetted officer, was entitled to have his case referred to the Administrative Tribunal on request, and quashed the direction for inquiry under Rule 55. The State's appeal under the Letters Patent was dismissed by a Division Bench, and the State obtained a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court. The core legal issue before the Supreme Court was the construction of Rule 4(2) of the 1947 Rules, specifically whether the word 'may' in that sub-rule conferred discretion on the Governor or meant 'shall' or 'must'. Rule 4(1) gave the Governor discretion to refer cases involving corruption, failure to discharge duties, irremediable general inefficiency, or personal immorality to the Tribunal. Rule 4(2) provided that the Governor may, in respect of a gazetted government servant on his own request, refer his case to the Tribunal in respect of those same matters. The appellant argued that the Governor had complete discretion whether to hold an inquiry before an Administrative Tribunal or under Rule 55 of the Civil Services Rules, and no obligation existed to grant a gazetted servant's request. The respondent contended that Rule 4(2) conferred a right on gazetted government servants to require a Tribunal inquiry upon request. The Court reasoned that while 'may' generally does not mean 'must' or 'shall', the context can change its meaning, particularly where a discretion is conferred upon a public authority coupled with an obligation. The whole purpose of Rule 4(2) would be frustrated if 'may' were given the same discretionary construction as in Rule 4(1). Since Rule 4(1) already included gazetted government servants within the discretionary power to refer cases to the Tribunal, Rule 4(2) would be wholly redundant unless it created a distinct right for those servants to opt for a Tribunal inquiry. The plain and unambiguous object of Rule 4(2) was to provide an option to gazetted government servants to request the Governor that their cases be tried by a Tribunal and not otherwise. Therefore, a request by a gazetted government servant under Rule 4(2) imposed an obligation on the Governor to grant it. Because the respondent had admittedly made such a request and it was not granted, the High Court was right in quashing the proceedings proposed to be taken otherwise than by referring the case to the Tribunal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with costs, affirming the High Court's order. The decision established that Rule 4(2) of the U.P. Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947 is mandatory in nature when a gazetted government servant requests a reference to the Administrative Tribunal.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal with costs, affirming the High Court's order quashing the State's direction to conduct disciplinary proceedings under Rule 55 of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and holding that the respondent's request for referral to the Administrative Tribunal under Rule 4(2) of U.P. Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947 had to be granted.

Law Points