1. Misconduct proceedings initiated against a retired government employee — Challenge to jurisdiction regarding the requirement of the Governor's personal satisfaction for initiating such proceedings. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 9
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
State of Madhya Pradesh
Vs.
KESHAV
Decided on January 2, 1996
The governor exercises executive power with the aid and advice of the council of Ministers, and the Business Rules made by the governor under the Constitution govern the transaction of government business.
Headnote:
Governor's Power - Disciplinary Proceedings - Executive Power and Business Rules
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, an Agriculture Engineer, faced allegations of misconduct after his retirement. He challenged the jurisdiction of the government to initiate proceedings against him through a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The High court held that the government cannot conduct disciplinary proceedings against the respondent as the governor had not personally passed the order to initiate proceedings.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the government to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a retired employee without the governor's personal order.
Ratio Decidendi: The governor does not need to act on personal satisfaction to initiate disciplinary proceedings. The executive power of the government is exercised with the aid and advice of the council of Ministers, and the Business Rules made by the governor under the Constitution govern the transaction of government business.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the government was deemed within its power to proceed with the enquiry as per the Business Rules and Pension Rules.
Act Referred
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the Governor must personally satisfy himself to initiate disciplinary proceedings or if the government may act through the Council of Ministers under Business Rules. (Para 2 )
3. The Governor exercises executive power with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, utilizing Business Rules to allocate administrative routine to various Ministers. (Para 3 , 4 )
4. The Governor need not act on personal satisfaction to initiate proceedings; actions taken by the Council of Ministers under Business Rules are legally valid. (Para 3 , 4 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order set aside — Disciplinary enquiry permitted to proceed under Pension Rules. (Para 5 )
6. Does the Governor need to be personally satisfied to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a government servant?
No, the Governor does not need to act on personal satisfaction. Under Article 166(3) of the Constitution, the Governor makes Business Rules for the convenient transaction of government business, and sanctions are dealt with by the Council of Ministers in accordance with those rules. (Para 3 , 4 )
7. How is the executive power of the government exercised in relation to administrative routine?
The Governor exercises executive power with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Under Article 162 and Article 166(3), Business Rules allocate subjects to Ministers, meaning the Governor is not required to be involved in routine administrative matters unless the Constitution mandates personal discretion. (Para 4 )
8. Are proceedings initiated by the competent authority under Business Rules valid for enquiries under Pension Rules?
Yes, if the action is initiated according to the Business Rules, the competent authority is within its power to proceed with the enquiry as contemplated under the Pension Rules. (Para 4 )
( 1 ). Leave granted.
( 2 ). This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the M. P. High court passed on 14/7/1986 in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 3382 of 1985. The facts are that the respondent while working as Agriculture Engineer in the Directorate of Agriculture is alleged to have committed misconduct. Consequently, after his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation on 31/7/1982, proceedings were sought to be initiated against him and notice therefor was issued on 28/7/1984. He filed a writ petition on 14/10/1985 calling in question the jurisdiction of the government to initiate proceedings. The High court in the impugned order held that the governor has to personally satisfy himself of the necessity to initiate proceedings and since the governor has not passed the order, the government cannot go into the question and conduct disciplinary proceedings against the respondent. Hence, the writ petition was allowed.
( 3 ). The controversy is no longer res Integra as in State of M. P. v. Dr Yashwant Trimbak, to which one of us Pattanaik, J. was a member, this court elaborately had considered the controversy and had held that the governor need not act on personal satisfaction. Under Article 166 (3 of the Constitution, the governor has made Business Rules for convenient transaction of the business of the government and the question of sanctionto prosecute in the case is dealt with by the council of Ministers in accordance with the Rules of Business.
( 4 ). It is settled law that the governor exercises the executive power of the government with the aid and advice of the council of Ministers. The executive power of the government is carried on by Article 162 in accordance with the Rules of Business made by the governor under Article 166 (3. The Business Rules and Instructions issued thereunder allocate various subjects to the Ministers and cases be appropriately dealt with at different levels of the government. All the decisions need not be circulated nor is the governor saddled with matters of administrative routine except where the Constitution enjoins him to exercise his personal discretion. Since the action was initiated according to the Business Rules the competent authority, therefore, is within its power to proceed with the enquiry as contemplated under the Pension Rules. The enquiry would be conducted according to Rules as expeditiously as possible and orders would be passed soon thereafter. It may be done within one year from the date of receipt of the order.
( 5 ). The appeal is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances, without costs.
.
