Back
1975 Supreme(MP) 46
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
G.P. Singh and S.S. Sharma, JJ.
T.C.Sharma
Versus
I.G.of Prisons
Decided On : Apr 21,1975
Headnote:(1) Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (M.P.) - R. 29 - power of review-can be exercised with the sanction of the Governor.
Where the Inspector General of Prisons passed an order of punishment, his successor in office cannot review the order of his predecessor under the power conferred on him by Rule 29(1)(ii).
But the ban applies only to sub-clause (ii) of clause (1) of Rule 29. It does not apply to sub-clause (iv) of clause (1) of Rule 29 and the order can be reviewed under general or specified order of the Governor. [Para 4]
(2) Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (M.P.) - R. 29(1)(iv) -Governor-does not act as persona designata.
(3) Constitution of India - Art. 77(3) -order passed by State Government according to the Rules of Business - are orders of the Governor.
Having regard to the position of Governor under the Constitution, this argument cannot be accepted that the Governor in exercising powers under sub-clause (iv) of clause (1) of Rule 29 acts as a persona designata or in his individual discretion. The power of the Governor under sub-clause (iv) would be exercisable by him only with the aid and advice of his Council of Ministers and in accordance with the Rules of Business. If there is in fact an order of the State Government according to the Rules of Business, that order would be an order of the Governor for the purpose of sub-clause (iv). AIR 1974 SC 2192; relied on. [Para 5]
(4) Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (MP) – Rr. 29 & 14 -enquiry already held-on review fresh enquiry is not necessary.
Tile first proviso to Rule 29(1) must be given a reasonable construction. On a proper construction of the language of the proviso, the reviewing authority is not obliged to hold a fresh inquiry under Rule 14 if such an inquiry had already been held before passing the order under review. [Para 7]
(5) Interpretation of Statutes-words of statute-are rarely inflexible-reasonable and absurd results should be avoided.
If the words of an Act are so inflexible that they are incapable in any context of having any but one meaning, then the Court must apply that meaning, no matter how unreasonable the result. But such cases are rare because the English language is a flexible instrument. (1970) 2 All ER 871 relied on.
Where the language used is not that explicit, an evideavor to so construe the provision must be made to avoid reaching an absurd or unreasonable remit. [Para 6]
(6) Constitution of India - Art. 20(2) - scope of - departmental punishment - not covered by the Article.
Article 20(2) provides that "no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once." When a civil servant is departmentally dealt with and is departmentally punished for a certain act of misconduct, it cannot be said that he has been prosecuted and punished for an offence within the meaning of Article 20(2) of the Constitution. [Para 9]
( 1. ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner challenges an order dated 1lth October, 1974 passed by the Inspector General of Prisons, dismissing the petitioner from service.
( 2. ) THE petitioner, at the relevant time, was in service of the Government of Madhya Pradesh as a Deputy Jailor. He was incharge Jailor of Alirajpur jail. On 1st June, 1972, twenty six prisoners were able to make good their escape from the jail between 12 noon and 1 p. m. . There was a departmental enquiry against the petitioner. Three charges were levelled against him in that enquiry. The first charge was that there was failure to discharge his duties as incharge Jailor including lack of supervision leading to laxity in observance of Security Rule. The second charge was that the petitioner never checked and verified that the gates of the jail ware locked in accordance with the Rules. The third charge was that the petitioner sent Guard Jairam, who was on duty at the gate, for his personal work without replacing another guard in his place. The departmental enquiry was conducted by the Superintendent, District jail, Alirajpur. The inquiry officer held that the charges Nos. 1 and 2 were proved against the petitioner. On the basis of the report of the inquiry officer, a show cause notice proposing the punishment of dismissal was issued by the then Inspector Genral of Prisons, Shri L. S. Naidu. The Petitioner submitted his explanation. Shri Naidu, by his order dated 26th November, 1973, held that charges Nos. 1 and 2 were proved against the petitioner. Shri Naidu was, however, of opinion that having regard to the petitioners past record, dismissal or removal from service would be too severe a punishment. Shri Naidu, therefore, imposed upon the petitioner the punishment of reduction to one lower stage in the time scale of pay for three years without affecting future increments. After retirement of Shri Naidu, Shri S. P. Singh became the Inspector General of Prisons. On 30th March, 1974 a notice was issued by Shri Singh to the petitioner to show cause why the previous order imposing upon him the punishment of reduction to one lower stage in the time scale of pay be not reviewed and the punishment of dismissal may not be imposed. Thereafter, on 11th October, 1974 the previous order of punishment was reviewed and the punishment of removal from service was imposed and the petitioner was removed from service from 15th October, 1974. It is this order which the petitioner challenges in this petition.
( 3. ) THE provision for review of an order imposing punishment is made in Rule 29 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. Clause (1) of the said rule which is relevant for our purposes reads as follows:
29. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules except Rule 11- (i) the Governor; or (ii) the head of a department directly under the State Government, in the case of a Government servant serving in a department or office, (not being the Secretariate), under the control of such head of a department, or (iii) the appellate authority, within six months of the date of the order proposed to be reviewed, or (iv) any other authority specified in this behalf by the Governor by a general or special order, and within such time as may be prescribed in such general or special order; may at any time, either on his of its own motion or otherwise call for the records of any inquiry and review any order made under these rules or under the rules repealed by Rule 34 from which an appeal is allowed but from which no appeal has been preferred or from which no appeal is allowed, after consultation with the commission where such consultation is necessary, and may- (a) confirm, modify or let aside the order; or (b) confirm, reduce, enhance or set aside the penalty imposed by the order, or impose any penalty where no penalty has been imposed; or (c) remit the case to the authority which made the ord
