Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M.P. SINGH, A.P. SINGH, JJ.
K. M. Pandey - Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. - Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21088 of 11992
Decided on : Sep 08, 1992
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION - SUSPENSION OF JOINT SECRETARY - JURISDICTION - GOVERNMENT HAS FULL JURISDICTION TO PASS SUSPENSION ORDER - NO NEED TO CONSULT COMMISSION - OBJECTIVE CONSIDERATION OF MATERIAL - TELEPHONIC CONVERSATION WITH CHAIRMAN AND SECRETARY PROVIDED SUFFICIENT MATERIAL TO GOVERNMENT - ARBITRARY OR DISCRIMINATORY - NO ACTION TAKEN AGAINST SECRETARY AS NO ALLEGATION AGAINST HIM IN FIRST INFORMATION REPORT - POLITICALLY MOTIVATED ORDER - VAGUE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MINISTER AND CHIEF MINISTER - NO COGENT MATERIAL TO SUPPORT ALLEGATIONS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a member of the U.P. Civil Services in Special Grade, was posted as Joint Secretary in the U.P. Public Service Commission. He was arrested on charges related to the leakage of a question paper. The Government passed an order of suspension against him. The petitioner challenged the suspension order, arguing that it was without jurisdiction, arbitrary, discriminatory, and politically motivated.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Government had full jurisdiction to pass the suspension order, as the petitioner was not given a fresh appointment but was only transferred and posted as Joint Secretary. The court also held that the Government had objectively considered the material available before it, including telephonic conversations with the Chairman and Secretary of the Commission, before passing the order. The court further held that the order was not arbitrary or discriminatory, as there was no allegation against the Secretary in the first information report. Finally, the court held that the allegations of political motivation were vague and unsubstantiated.
Issues: 1. Whether the Government had jurisdiction to pass the suspension order. 2. Whether the Government had objectively considered the material before it before passing the order. 3. Whether the order was arbitrary or discriminatory. 4. Whether the order was politically motivated.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Government had full jurisdiction to pass the suspension order, as the petitioner was not given a fresh appointment but was only transferred and posted as Joint Secretary. 2. The Government had objectively considered the material available before it, including telephonic conversations with the Chairman and Secretary of the Commission, before passing the order. 3. The order was not arbitrary or discriminatory, as there was no allegation against the Secretary in the first information report. 4. The allegations of political motivation were vague and unsubstantiated.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the suspension order did not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record or any other legal infirmity.
M. P. Singh, J.
1. In the Public Service Commission there is a post of Joint Secretary, selection to this post is made from amongst Officers of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Services (Executive Branch) placed in special grade. The Incumbent of this post draws pay in the special grade as may be admissible to him from time to time plus special pay of Rs. 250/- per month.
2. The petitioner being a member of the U. P. Civil Services in Special Grade was posted as Joint Secretary on 11-8-1989 in the U. P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad (for short the Commission).
Sri Ram Yadav was posted as Controller of Examination in the Commission. On account of his ill-health the Government passed an order on 23rd March, 1992 authorising the petitioner to take over as Controller of Examination. It was only a local change but not a permanent arrangement as is evident from the order dated 23-3-1992 itself.
3. In connection with the leakage of question paper of General Studies of the Indian Administrative Services (Preliminary Examination) 1992 held on 7-6-1992, a first information report was lodged by one Ajai Kumar Singh, a student leader of Allahabad University under section 409 IPC and section 5 (1) of the Official's Secrets Act on the same day.
4. The petitioner was arrested on 7-6-1992. Ha was granted bail on the next day by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Government passed an order of suspension on 9 6-11992. The said order is under challenge.
The case set up by the petitioner was that he was in no way connected with the offence. The order of suspension is wholly without jurisdiction. It has been passed on (Irrelevant considerations. The order is arbitrary and discriminatory.
5. The suspension order could have been passed only on an objective consideration of the material available to the Government. The order has been passed without application of mind. Unless there was a departmental enquiry in contemplation, the order could not have been passed. Except for some newspaper report, there was no other material before the Government on that day.
6. The order has been passed art the instance of Mr. N K. S. Gaur, the Minister for Higher Education, Uttar Pradesh who persuaded the Chief Minister, U. P. to take immediate action.
After hearing Sri V B. Upadhyay, the senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri V. M. Sahi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Commission, we are of the view that the order of suspension suffers from no error apparent on the face of the record, APPOINTED OR POSTED AS JOINT SECRETARY.
7. The main thrust of the arguments of Sri V. B. Upadhya was that in view of the Regulation 17 (1) of the U. P. Public Service Commission (Condition of Service) Regulation, 1937 (for short the Regulations) the appointment of the petitioner as Joint Secretary was made by the Governor in Consultation with the Commission so he became a full time employee of the Commission. The Government, therefore, could not have passed the order of suspension without consulting the Commission.
8. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel, the relevant provisions of the Regulations may be looked into.
The Regulations of 1937 were framed by the Government under Sub-Section (2) of Section 265 of Government of India Act 1935 making provision with respect to the number of staff and their conditions of service. Article 318 of the Constitution is equivalent to section 265 of the Government of India Act. Article 313 of the Constitution provides for the transitional provision. According to it the said Regulations are applicable with some, modifications.
9. Chapter II of the Regulation deals with the leave, pension, passage allowance, travelling allowance, compensatory allowance and provident fund regarding the Chairman and members of tike Commission.
10. Under Regulation 15, rules ware framed on 18- 8-1941 making it clear that even for Chairman and Members, where there is no provision in the Regulatio
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
