SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.
Jai Jai Ram and others, Appellants
Versus
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow, and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 2267 of 1981,
D/- 9-7-1996.
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 197 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 21 - Transport Corporation - Passenger transport service - Question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether disciplinary action could have been taken against appellants who are/were Government servants and who have/had been sent to UP State Road Transport Corporation on deputation by those Government officers who have/had been sent to Corporation on deputation along with appellants - There is no dispute on point that some of appellants were appointed by those officers - Other officers whose actions have been challenged are were superior in rank or of same rank but not subordinate in rank or grade to appointing officers of the remaining appellants – Held It was submitted that authority contemplated by Article is authority which should have power to appoint a person on a civil post under the Union or a State as case may be - Court do not find any substance in this contention also - Article gives protection to member of civil service of Union or an all-India service or civil service of State or to person holding a civil post under the Union or a State against dismissal or removal by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed - Article does not provide that member of civil service or person holding a civil post either Union or a State cannot be dismissed or removed by authority except appointing authority - There is no requirement that authority which takes disciplinary action must continue to have power of making appointment to civil service or on a civil post Union or a State - It can be any other authority so long as it is not subordinate in rank or grade authority by which delinquent Government servant was appointed - That is the only requirement of Article and court cannot read anything more into it - In State of UP Court has in clear terms that there is nothing in Constitution which debars Government from conferring powers on an officer other than appointing authority to dismiss Government servant provided he is not subordinate in rank to appointing officer or authority - Appeal dismissed
Judgement
NANAVATI, J.:- This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 150 of 1980 and Writ Petition Nos. 168, 169, 175, 177, 178, 179, 716, 720, 724, 761, 762, 764, 765, 880, 885 and 892 of 1980.
2. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether disciplinary action could have been taken against the appellants, who are/were Government servants and who have/had been sent to the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation on deputation, by those Government officers who have/had been sent to the Corporation on deputation along with the appellants. There is no dispute on the point that some of the appellants were appointed by those officers. Other officers whose actions have been challenged are/were superior in rank or of the same rank but not subordinate in the rank or grade to the appointing officers of the remaining appellants.
3. Before June 1, 1972, the U.P. Government was running a passenger transport service known as the U.P. Government roadways in various parts of the State. The said department undertaking was then headed by Transport Commissioner. By notification dated 10th May, 1954, issued by the State Government under Article 309 of the Constitution, the Transport Commissioner, the Deputy Transport Commissioner, General Managers and the Assistant Regional Managers were notified as appointing authorities in respect of those categories of posts which were mentioned in the said notification. The Assistant Regional Managers were designated as appointing authorities, inter alia, for the posts of conductors and drivers. The appellants are or were holding such posts. Assistant Regional Managers were subsequently redesignated as Assistant General Managers and w.e.f. June 1, 1972, as Assistant Zonal Managers. The Corporation was established w.e.f. June 1, 1972 by notification dated May 31, 1972 and all the officers and employees connected with the work of roadways were deemed to be on deputation with the Corporation w.e.f. June 1, 1972. In course of time the Corporation appointed its own officers and employees but all those Government officers and other employees who were sent on deputation continued to remain on deputation and were not absorbed in the service of the Corporation. Disciplinary actions were taken against some of the employees and they were challenged on several grounds. In this appeal we are concerned with those employees who had continued as Government employees till their services came to be terminated or those against whom disciplinary actions have been initiated or were taken by those officers working in the Corporation who were sent on deputation and who also continued to be on deputation till impugned actions were taken by them. Some of the employees had filed applications before the tribunal challenging the disciplinary actions taken against them. Those applications were allowed by the tribunal on the ground that as the applicants had continued to be on deputation with the Corporation the State continued to be their employer and, therefore, the Corporation was not competent to take disciplinary action against them. Aggrieved by the orders passed on those applications, the Corporation had filed the above writ petitions except writ petition No.150 of 1980 in the Allahabad High Court. Writ Petition No.150 of 1980 was filed by those deputationists/employees who have been suspended pending disciplinary actions against them. In that petition they have challenged their suspension. All those actions and orders were challenged on the ground that the Corporation and its officers including those officers who were/have been sent on deputation had no power to pass such orders as the petitioners being Government servants only the officers serving under Government could have passed such orders. All these petitions were heard together by the Allahabad High Court. In view of the conflicting opinions expressed by different Benches
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.