1. Dismissal of a civil servant following an enquiry under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 — Challenge to the jurisdiction and procedural validity of the proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
1959 Supreme(SC) 224
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
15th December, 1959.
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SUBBA RAO, K.C. DAS GUPTA AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.
S. Kapur Singh, Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 230 of 1959.
Advocates appeared
M/s I. M. Lal. K. S. Chawla and K. R. Krishnaswami. Advocates, for Appellant; Mr. H. N. Sanyal, Addl. Solicitor-General of India and Mr. N. S. Bindra, Senior Advocate (M/s. R. H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen, Advocates with them), for Respondent.
Advocates:
H.N.SANYAL, I.M.LAL, K.R.Krishnamurthy, K.S.CHAWLA, N.S.BINDRA, R.H.Dhebar, T.M.SEN
H.N.SANYAL, I.M.LAL, K.R.Krishnamurthy, K.S.CHAWLA, N.S.BINDRA, R.H.Dhebar, T.M.SEN
An enquiry under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, is valid for all-India service members. Choosing this over administrative rules doesn't violate Article 14. Article 311's "reasonable opportunity" is satisfied by a fair enquiry and written representation, without requiring a viva voce hearing before the President.
Headnote:(A) Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 - Section 2 - Constitution of India - Articles 14, 310, 311 and 314 - Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules - Rule 55 - Enquiry into conduct of public servant - Jurisdiction and procedure - A member of an all-India service is an employee of the Union or the State and falls within the purview of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, as they are not removable from appointment without the sanction of the Government (Paras 7, 8). Rule 55 of the Civil Services Rules is without prejudice to the 1850 Act, meaning an enquiry may be conducted under either the Act or the Rule (Paras 9, 10, 11).
(B) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Equal Protection - The choice between two alternative statutory or administrative procedures for conducting an enquiry does not violate the equal protection clause unless it is shown that the procedure adopted operated to the prejudice of the public servant (Paras 12-16).
(C) Constitution of India - Article 311 - Reasonable opportunity to show cause - The requirement to provide a reasonable opportunity to show cause against proposed action does not necessitate a viva voce examination of witnesses before the appointing authority if a fair and full enquiry has already been conducted by an Enquiry Commissioner (Paras 21-23).
Facts of the case:
A member of the civil service was suspended and an enquiry was conducted under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, regarding charges of misappropriation and abuse of authority. Following the enquiry report, the President provisionally decided to dismiss the officer and provided an opportunity to submit a written representation. The officer was subsequently dismissed. The dismissal was challenged on grounds of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, and breach of constitutional guarantees.
Findings of Court:
The enquiry conducted under the 1850 Act was within jurisdiction. The procedure followed was substantially similar to that under the Civil Services Rules and did not violate Article 14. The officer was provided a reasonable opportunity to defend himself and show cause against the proposed punishment.
Issues: Whether an enquiry under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, is valid for a member of the all-India service; whether such an enquiry violates the equal protection clause; and whether the absence of an oral hearing before the President violates Article 311.
Ratio Decidendi: Members of the all-India service are employees of the Union or State and are subject to the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850. The use of one of two alternative legal procedures for enquiry is not discriminatory. A reasonable opportunity to show cause under Article 311 is satisfied by a fair enquiry and the opportunity to make written representations; it does not require a repetition of the enquiry or an oral hearing before the final authority.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Jurisdiction of state government to order enquiry — Applicability of Public Servants (Inquiries) Act versus Civil Services Rules — Violation of equal protection and natural justice. (Para 6 )
3. Civil servants hold office during the pleasure of the President — Public Servants (Inquiries) Act and Rule 55 provide substantially similar procedural safeguards for fair hearings. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
4. Are members of the Indian Civil Service subject to the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850?
Yes. Members of the Indian Civil Service are employees of the Union or State and hold office during the pleasure of the President. As they are not removable from their appointment without government sanction, they fall within the purview of the Act. (Para 7 , 8 )
5. What is the relationship between Rule 55 of the Civil Services Rules and the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850?
Rule 55 operates without prejudice to the 1850 Act. An order of dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank may be passed following an enquiry conducted either under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act or under the procedure prescribed by Rule 55. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
6. Does directing an enquiry under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act instead of Rule 55 violate Article 14?
No. While the Act is more detailed, the procedures are substantially similar. Both require notice of charges, supply of materials, and the opportunity for an oral hearing, cross-examination, and the production of witnesses. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
Judgment
SHAH, J. : Sardar Kapur Singh (who will hereinafter be referred to as the appellant) was admitted by the Secretary of State for India in Council to the Indian Civil Service upon the result of a competitive examination held at Delhi in 1931. After a period of training in the United Kingdom, the appellant returned to India in November, 1933 and was posted as Assistant Commissioner, Ferozepore in the Province of Punjab. He served in the Province in various capacities between the years 1933 and 1947. In July, 1947, he was posted as Deputy Commissioner at Dharamsala and continued to hold that office till February 11, 1948, when he was transferred to Hoshiarpur at which place he continued to hold the office of Deputy Commissioner till a few days before April 14, 1949. On April 13, 1949, the appellant was served with an order passed by the Government of East Punjab suspending him from service. On May 5, 1950, the appellant submitted a representation to the President of India protesting against the action of the Government of East Punjab suspending him from service and praying that he be removed from the control of the Punjab Government and that if any disciplinary action was intended to be taken against him, it be taken outside the Province of Punjab by persons appointed by the Government of India and in an atmosphere "free from prejudice and hostility". The Government of East Punjab on May 18, 1950, appointed Mr. Eric Weston, Chief Justice of East Punjab High Court as Enquiry Commissioner under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, XXXVII of 1850, to hold an enquiry against the appellant on twelve articles of charges. Notice was issued to the appellant of those charges. On November 5, 1950 at the suggestion of the Enquiry Commissioner, the Government of East Punjab withdrew charge Nos. 11 and 12 and the Enquiry Commissioner proceeded to hold the enquiry on the remaining ten charges. Charges 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, and 10 related to misappropriation of diverse sums of money received by or entrusted to the appellant, for which he failed to account. The third charge related to the attempts made by the appellant to secure a firearm belonging to an engineer and the unauthorised retention of that weapon and the procuration of sanction from the Government of East Punjab regarding its purchase. The fourth charge related to the granting of sanction under the Alienation of Land Act for sale of a plot of land by an agriculturist to a non-agriculturist, the appellant being the beneficiary under the transaction of sale, and to the abuse by him of his authority as Deputy Commissioner in getting that land transferred to his name, without awaiting the sanction of the Government. The fifth charge related to the grant to Sardar Raghubir Singh of a Government contract for the supply of fire-wood without inviting tenders or quotations, at rates unreasonably high and to the acceptance of wet and inferior wood which when dried weighed only half the quantity purchased, entailing thereby a loss of Rs. 30,000 to the State. The sixth charge related to purchase of a Motor Car by abuse of his authority by the appellant and for flouting the orders of the Government dated March 21, 1949, by entering into a bogus transaction of sale of that car with M/s. Massand Motors and for deciding an appeal concerning that car in which he was personally interested.
2. Charges Nos. 1 to 4 and 7 to 10 related to the official conduct of the appellant when he was posted as Deputy Commissioner at Dharamsala and charges Nos. 5 and 6 related to the period when he was posted as Deputy Commissioner at Hoshiarpur.
3. The Enquiry Commissioner heard the evidence on behalf of the State at Dharamsals between July 31 and August 21, 1950. Enquiry proceedings were then resumed on September 5 at Simla and were continued till October 23 on which date the evidence on behalf of the State was closed. On October 27, the appellant filed a list of defence witnesses. A detailed written statement was file
