1963 (3) TMI 59 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court interprets Rule 4(2) as mandatory for gazetted officers, upholds High Court decision

State Of Uttar Pradesh Versus Jogendra Singh

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, ruling that Rule 4(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, ... - Issues:Construction of Rule 4(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947.Detailed Analysis:The case involved the interpretation of Rule 4(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947. The respondent, a government servant, was initially exonerated by the Administrative Tribunal in 1953. However, additional complaints led to his suspension in 1955 and the framing of new charges in 1956. The respondent requested that his case be entrusted to the Administrative Tribunal, but the government rejected this request. The respondent then filed a writ petition in the High Court, which ruled in his favor, stating that as a gazetted officer, he had the right to request the Administrative Tribunal for the enquiry. The High Court's decision was upheld by a Division Bench, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.The appellant argued that the Governor had the discretion to decide whether the enquiry against a government servant should be conducted by the Administrative Tribunal or an appropriate authority under Rule 55 of the Civil Services Rules. On the other hand, the High Court held that Rule 4(2) imposed an obligation on the Governor to grant a gazetted government servant's request to have their case referred to the Tribunal. The Supreme Court analyzed Rule 4(1) and Rule 4(2) in conjunction, noting that while the Governor had discretion under Rule 4(1) to refer cases to the Tribunal, Rule 4(2) specifically addressed gazetted government servants' rights to request Tribunal proceedings. The Court emphasized that the word 'may' in Rule 4(2) should be interpreted as 'shall' in this context, as it was intended to provide a specific option for gazetted government servants. Therefore, the Court agreed with the High Court's interpretation and held that the Governor was obligated to grant the respondent's request to refer his case to the Tribunal. Since this request was not granted, the Court upheld the High Court's decision to quash the proceedings initiated by the appellant against the respondent.In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision and emphasizing that Rule 4(2) mandated the Governor to grant a gazetted government servant's request to have their case referred to the Administrative Tribunal.