Back
1936 Supreme(SC) 66
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD ROCHE, SIR SHADI LAL, AND SIR GEORGE RANKIN.
R. VENKATA RAO - Appellant
Versus
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA IN COUNCIL - Respondents
On appeal from the High Court at Madras.
Decided On : Dec. 8. 1936.
Solicitor for appellant:G. K. Kannepalli. Solicitor for respondent: Solicitor, India Office.
A civil servant holding office "during pleasure" under statute cannot sue for damages for wrongful dismissal even if prescribed service rules were violated, as such rules are administrative directions and not contractual terms creating an actionable right.
Headnote:(A) Government of India Act - Section 96B - Civil Services Classification Rules - Rules XIII and XIV - Dismissal of civil servant - Right to damages for wrongful dismissal - Civil servants hold office during the pleasure of the Crown as expressly provided by statute - Rules prescribing departmental inquiries before dismissal are administrative directions and do not create a contractual right enforceable by action for damages - The provision that office is held during pleasure precludes the implication of a contract that the servant can only be dismissed in accordance with specific rules - Administrative remedies provided under the rules for redress of grievances are the appropriate channel, not judicial suits - The statutory assurance that tenure will be regulated by rules is a guarantee against arbitrary action but does not confer a right to sue for damages in court.
(B) Service Rules - Nature and Effect - Rules governing the conduct and discipline of civil servants are manifold and subject to change; allowing judicial control over their detailed application would lead to administrative confusion.
Facts of the case:
A permanent and pensionable government employee was dismissed from service following suspicions of leaking examination papers. The dismissal was not preceded by the departmental inquiry required under the applicable service rules. The employee filed a suit for damages for wrongful dismissal, alleging that the failure to conduct the prescribed inquiry rendered the dismissal illegal.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the departmental inquiry conducted was defective and did not satisfy the requirements of the service rules. However, it held that the employee had no actionable right to sue for damages because the statutory terms of employment were "during pleasure."
Issues: Whether a civil servant, who holds office during pleasure under a statute, can maintain a suit for damages for wrongful dismissal if the dismissal was carried out in breach of the procedure prescribed by service rules.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute expressly provides that a civil servant holds office during pleasure, this term cannot be excluded or modified by service rules to create a contractual right to a specific procedure. The rules are administrative guidelines for the government's internal management and do not constitute a contract between the Crown and its servants. Redress for grievances must be sought through the administrative appeal processes provided by the rules rather than through the courts.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
administrative law
-
public service
-
tenure of office
- pleasure doctrine
-
disciplinary proceedings
- departmental inquiry
-
tenure of office
-
public service
-
tort
- wrongful dismissal
Judgement
Appeal (No. 15 of 1936), in forma pauperis, by special leave, from a decree of the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction (December 19, 1933), affirming a decree of the High Court in its original jurisdiction (August 26, 1930). The appellant, R. Venkata Rao, was a reader in the Government Press, Madras, holding a permanent and pensionable post. In May, 1924, he was under suspicion in connection with the leakage of pleadership examination papers. On September 22, 1924, he was dismissed from the service. On December 17, 1927, he brought the present action against the respondent, the Secretary of State for India in Council, pleading his innocence, and alleging that he had been dismissed without the inquiry prescribed by r. XIV. of the CIVIL SERVICES CLASSIFICATION RULES , made under s. 96B of the Government of India Act, and claiming Rs. 15,000 as damages for wrongful dismissal. The defendant pleaded that the relevant statutory rules had been substantially complied with ; that he was entitled to dismiss his servants at pleasure ; and that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
The facts, and the relevant statutory provisions and rules appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
The suit was tried by Waller J., who held that the inquiry that had been held was not of the kind prescribed by r. XIV., but he decided the questions of law against the appellant.
The Appellate Court (Beasley C.J. and Bardswell J.) were also of opinion that the procedure prescribed by the rules had not been followed, but they agreed with Waller J. on the questions of law and dismissed the appeal. The appeal is reported at ( 1934) I. L. R. 57 M. 857.
1936. Nov. 5, 6, 9 and 10. Subba Row and Ralph Parikh for the appellant.
Dunne K.C. and Wallach for the respondent.
[This appeal was heard at the same time as R. T. Rangachari v. Secretary of State for India in Council ( 1937) ante p. 40, where the argument is reported.]
Dec. 8. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by
LORD ROCHE. This is an appeal against a decree, dated December 19, 1933, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in its appellate jurisdiction, affirming a judgment of the High Court in its original jurisdiction dismissing the action of the present appellant, the plaintiff in the action. The action was one claiming damages for wrongful dismissal from government service, and the questions involved were whether the dismissal was in fact wrongful and in breach of the material rules of the service and, if so, whether the suit for damages was maintainable.
The facts of the case were these The appellant, in May, 1924, was a reader in the Government Press, Madras, and as such reader held office in the civil service of the Crown in India. In May, 1924, he fell under suspicion of being concerned in a leakage of information in respect of pleadership examination papers. The appellant consistently and stoutly denied the charge. The matter was
Law. Rep. 64 Ind. App. 55 ( 1936- 1937)
R. Venkata Rao V. Secretary of State for India in C ouncil
222
investigated, and at first the appellant was directed to vindicate his character in a court of law. He proceeded to do so by action for libel against a candidate for examination who was said to have informed against him. In this action he ultimately got judgment by default for nominal damages. But before the case was determined the appellant was, on August 23, 1924, suspended, and on September 22 dismissed from the service. An appeal to the Madras Government by memorial was rejected. The present suit was brought on December 17, 1927. In the plaint, as in the memorial to Government, the appellant in addition to his arguments as to innocence in fact complained that the dismissal was contrary to the statute inasmuch as it was not preceded by any such inquiry as is prescribed by r. XIV. of the CIVIL SERVICES CLASSIFICATION RULES made thereunder. The material section of the statute (Government of India Act) is s. 96b, which reads
