1. Removal from service of a Tahvildar in a government treasury — Claim for protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1964 Supreme(SC) 70
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO, J.C. SHAH, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND S.M. SIKRI, JJ.
State of U.P. and another, Appellants
Versus
Audh Narain Singh and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 120 of 1963.
Advocates appeared
Mr. H. N. Sanyal, Solicitor-General of India (Mr. C. P. Lal, Advocate, with him), for Appellants; Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Senior Advocate (Mr. J. P. Goyal, Advocate, with him), for Respondents.
Advocates:
C.P.LAL, H.N.SANYAL, J.P.GOYAL, M.C.SETALVAD
C.P.LAL, H.N.SANYAL, J.P.GOYAL, M.C.SETALVAD
A person is a civil servant entitled to Article 311 protection if the state controls their appointment, pays their remuneration directly, and exercises power over their transfer, suspension, and removal, regardless of whether the immediate appointment was made by an intermediary.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 311(2) - Civil servant/Civil post - Protection against removal without reasonable opportunity - Test for master-servant relationship: selection, payment of remuneration, control over method of work, and power to suspend or remove. (Paras 8, 10)
(B) Master-Servant Relationship - Right of employer to control the manner of work is strongly indicative of the relation. If a master authorizes a servant to employ others to perform a job and guarantee their efficiency, those employees are also servants of the master. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
An individual was appointed as a cashier in the cash department of a district treasury by a government treasurer with the approval of the district officer. The individual was removed from service without being afforded a reasonable opportunity to show cause. The individual claimed to be a member of the civil service or to hold a civil post under the state, thereby entitling them to protection under the constitution.
Findings of Court:
The individual was held to be an employee of the state as the appointment was subject to the approval of the district officer, remuneration was paid directly by the state, and the state maintained control over transfers, suspensions, and removals.
Issues: Whether a person appointed as a cashier in the cash department of a district treasury, though appointed by a treasurer, holds a civil post under the state and is entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The relationship of master and servant is a question of fact determined by the right of the employer to control not only the work to be done but also the manner in which it is performed. Since the state controlled the appointment, paid the remuneration, and exercised disciplinary power, the appointee was a civil servant entitled to constitutional protection.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a Tahvildar appointed by a Government Treasurer with District Collector's approval holds a civil post under the State, entitling them to constitutional protections. (Para 1 , 2 )
3. The State exercised substantial control over appointment, remuneration, and disciplinary actions, establishing a master-servant relationship despite the appointment being made through a Government Treasurer. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 )
4. A person holds a civil post if the State controls the method of work and possesses the power to appoint, remunerate, suspend, and dismiss. (Para 8 , 10 )
5. Appeal dismissed; order of removal declared invalid for non-compliance with Article 311(2) of the Constitution. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
6. What is the primary test to determine the existence of a master-servant relationship in employment?
The prima facie test is the employer's right to control not only what work is to be done but also the manner in which it is performed, alongside indicia such as selection, payment of remuneration, and the power to suspend or remove the employee. (Para 8 , 9 )
7. Does appointment by an intermediary preclude a person from being considered a civil servant of the State?
No. If the intermediary is authorized by the State and the State maintains control over the appointee's remuneration, method of work, and disciplinary actions, the appointee is deemed a servant of the State regardless of the appointment channel. (Para 9 , 10 )
8. When does Article 311(2) of the Constitution apply to the removal of an employee?
Article 311(2) applies when the employee holds a civil post under the State, requiring that they be afforded a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action before being removed from service. (Para 1 , 10 , 11 )
Judgment
SHAH, J. : Audh Narain Singh - hereinafter called Singh - was appointed in 1949 a Tahvildar in the District of Azamgarh in the State of U. P. and worked in the Cash Department of the Government treasury of that District. The appointment of Singh was made by Dhanpat Singh Tandon, Government Treasurer, with the approval of the District Magistrate. By order dated April 20, 1956, Singh who was then working as a Tahvildar in the Sub-treasury at tahsil Lalganj in the District of Azamgarh was informed that he was under instructions from the Collector removed from service. Against the order of removal, Singh preferred an appeal to the Collector but the same was rejected, and a representation made to the Commissioner of, the Banaras Division was unsuccessful. Singh then preferred a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for a writ of certiorari quashing the order of removal passed against him and for a writ of mandamus or an order directing the Collector of Azamgarh and the State of Uttar Pradesh, Dhanpat Singh Tandon, Government Treasurer, and the Commissioner of Banaras Division to treat him as a Tahvildar in the sub-treasury at Lalganj in the District of Azmgarh Singh claimed that he was a member of the civil service of the State of Uttar Pradesh or held a civil post under the State, and was not liable to be removed from service without being afforded a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him under Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution. Mehrotra, J., who heard the petition held that the Government Treasurer being an employee of the State, a Tahvildar employed by the Government Treasurer to carry out the work, entrusted by the State, subject to the control of the State Government, was an employee of the State Government, and the impugned order of removal was invalid because Singh was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him.
2. The order of Mehrotra, J., was confirmed in appeal by the High Court of Allahabad. In the view of the High Court, no direct relationship of master and servant between Singh and the State was established because Singh was appointed by the Treasurer, but the Treasurer having authority to employ him in order to carry out the work of the State, Singh was as much under the control of the state as he was under the control of the Treasurer and therefore he could claim to, hold a civil post under the State and to have the benefit of Art. 311 of the Constitution. Against the order passed by the High Court, this appeal is preferred with Special leave.
3. The question which falls to be determined is whether a Tahvildar appointed in the cash Department in the State of Uttar Pradesh is a civil servant of the state of Uttar Pradesh or holds a civil post in the State. In the state of Uttar Pradesh, contract for administering the cash Department of the District treasuries are given to persons who are called Government Treasurers. The Treasurer holds a post specifically created in the District Treasury: he is appointed by the collector subject to the approval of the Finance Secretary. On being appointed, the Treasurer enters into an agreement for the due performance of his duties, and executes a bond in favour of the state. The tenure of a Government Treasurer is temporary and he is not entitled to privileges of leave and pension, but yhe performs various duties connected with the executive functions of the state. His appointment is made by the collector subject to the approval of the Finance Secretary. He has to maintain a true and faithful account of the property entrusted to him and he dealings therewith and to submit return as prescribed. He is also bound by the conditions, rules and regulations of the Government and also departmental rules and orders as may be in force, especially with reference to his relations and dealings with and the right of
