2016 Supreme(SC) 778

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. THAKUR, CJI., V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.
State of U.P. & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Z.U. Ansari – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 9886 of 2016 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20985 of 2014]
Decided On : 30-09-2016

Headnote:(a) Civil Services Regulations, 1975 – Regulation 351-A r/w Article 163 and Article 166, Constitution of India – Except for discretionary functions, Governor acts on the aid and advice of Council of Ministers – Functions vested in the Governor whether executive, legislative or quasi-judicial in nature and whether vested by the Constitution or by statute can be delegated under the Rules of Business – Initiating disciplinary proceedings against a Government servant is an executive function – Governor can allocate such function to the Minister by framing rules of business – Rule 2, Business of Uttar Pradesh (Allocation) Rules, 1975 – Also, Rule 3, Uttar Pradesh Rules of Business, 1975 – Neither the Constitution nor the rules requiring matters touching grant of sanction in cases like the present to be dealt with by the Governor and the Governor alone – The power to sanction stands validly conferred on the Minister concerned. (Para 8, 9, 12)

       (1974) 2 SCC 831 – Relied upon

       (b) Constitution of India – Article 166(2) – Sanction order made by Minister concerned, competent under Rules of Business – Issued under the signature of the Under Secretary – Makes no material difference. (Para 14)

       (1996) 2 SCC 305; (2005) 2 SCC 92 – Relied upon

       (1961) 1 SCR 728; (1968) 3 SCR 251; AIR 1964 SC 1128 – Referred

       Per V. Gopala Gowda, J.

       (c) Constitution of India – Articles 166(3) and 309 – Operate in completely different fields – Exercise of power under Article 166 cannot be used as a benchmark while exercising power under Article 309 – Uttar Pradesh Business Transaction Rules, 1975 framed under Article 166 conferring power on a minister in charge to exercise power in the name of Governor – Cannot be used to exercise of power by the Minister under the regulations framed under Article 309. (Para 13)

       State of Gujarat v. R.A. Mehta; B.S Yadav v. State of Haryana; Sampat Prakash v. State of Jammu and Kashmir – Relied upon

       (d) Civil Services Regulations, 1975 – Regulation 351-A – Sanction of Governor required before initiation of proceedings against a retired employee – Power under Regulation 351-A can be delegated – However, delegation accorded under the Business Transaction Rules, 1975 cannot be taken as delegation under Regulation 351-A – No evidence of delegation of power under Regulation 351-A – Impugned sanction held not valid. (Para 14, 18)

       State of U.P. v. Harihar Bhole Nath; State of U.P. v. Krishna Pandey – Relied upon

       (1996) 2 SCC 305; (1974) 2 SCC 831; (1961) 1 SCR 728; AIR 1964 SC 1128 – Distinguished

       Facts of the case:

       The respondent-writ petitioner joined the Saharanpur Division of Rural Engineering Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh as a Junior Engineer. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer and he superannuated from service on 30th September, 2008.

       Financial irregularities allegedly causing a pecuniary loss to the tune of Rs.13,23,964/-to the State exchequer, having been noticed, a proposal for initiating disciplinary proceedings was mooted by the Rural Engineering Department and sanctioned by the Minister in-charge of Rural Engineering Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh. A charge-sheet was accordingly issued to the respondent and Chief Engineer (WB) was nominated as Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry into the charges.

       The respondent filed Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition before the High Court. The principal contention urged in support of that Writ Petition was that in the absence of a valid sanction from the Governor under 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations, 1975 the disciplinary action proposed against the respondent was legally impermissible.

       The Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the disciplinary proceedings including the charge-sheet served upon the respondent.

       Finding of the Court:

       Hon'ble the Chief Justice pronounced the judgment on behalf of himself, allowing the appeal in terms of the signed reportable judgment.

       Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda pronounced separate judgment, disagreeing with the views expressed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice and dismissed the appeal.

       Result: In view of the difference of opinion, matter referred to an appropriate Bench.