1957 (9) TMI 43 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds Government order on rank reduction; emphasizes procedural compliance. Appeal dismissed, costs to parties.

STATE OF UP. Versus MANBODHAN LAL SRIVASTAVA

The Supreme Court validated the Government's order reducing the respondent in rank, finding that procedural requirements under Article 311 were satisfied. ... Whether the High Court was right in taking the view that Art. 311 was subject to the provisions of Art. 320(3)(c) of the Constitution, which were mandatory, and, as such, non-compliance with those provisions in the instant case was fatal to the proceedings ending with the order passed by the Government on September 12, 1953? Held that:- We have already indicated that Art. 320(3)(c) of the Constitution does not confer any rights on a public servant so that the absence of consultation or any irregularity in consultation, should not afford him a cause of action in a court of law, or entitle him to relief under the special powers of a High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution or of this Court under Art. 32. It is not a right which could be recognized and enforced by a writ. On the other hand, Art. 311 of the Constitution has been construed as conferring a right on a civil servant of the Union or a State, which he can enforce in a court of law. It must be held that the provisions of Art. 320(3)(c) are not mandatory and that non- compliance with those provisions does not afford a cause of action to the respondent in a court of law. It is not for this Court further to consider what other remedy, if any, the respondent has. Appeal No. 27 is, therefore, allowed and appeal No. 28 dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the Government's orders reducing the respondent in rank and ordering his compulsory retirement.2. Compliance with Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution.3. The right to full salary during the suspension period.4. The admissibility of additional evidence at the appellate stage.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Government's Orders:The respondent, employed in the education department of Uttar Pradesh, was demoted and compulsorily retired following charges of misconduct. The High Court quashed the orders reducing him in rank and emoluments due to non-compliance with Article 320(3)(c) but did not address the compulsory retirement as it occurred naturally. The Supreme Court examined whether the procedural requirements under Article 311 were satisfied, which they were, thus validating the Government's final order reducing him in rank.2. Compliance with Article 320(3)(c):The High Court found that the respondent's elaborate explanation submitted on July 3, 1953, was not placed before the Public Service Commission, violating Article 320(3)(c). The Supreme Court, however, determined that Article 320(3)(c) is not mandatory. It reasoned that the Constitution allows for regulations where consultation with the Commission is not necessary, indicating that non-compliance does not invalidate the Government's final order. The Court emphasized that Article 320 does not confer enforceable rights on public servants, unlike Article 311, which provides a constitutional guarantee.3. Right to Full Salary During Suspension:The respondent's appeal for full salary during the suspension period was dismissed by the High Court. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, noting that if the State Government's appeal was allowed, the respondent's appeal would fail without further consideration.4. Admissibility of Additional Evidence:The appellant attempted to introduce additional evidence at the Supreme Court stage to show compliance with Article 320(3)(c). The Court refused, stating that additional evidence should not be admitted to fill gaps in the case presented at the High Court. The Court proceeded on the assumption that there was no consultation with the Commission after the respondent's second explanation.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed Appeal No. 27 by the State of Uttar Pradesh, validating the Government's order reducing the respondent in rank. Appeal No. 28 by the respondent was dismissed. The Court directed each party to bear its own costs, acknowledging the appellant's failure to strictly comply with Article 320(3)(c).