1963 (3) TMI 59 - SC - Indian Laws

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

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, ruling that Rule 4(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, ... Construction of the word 'may' in a statutory rule - discretion versus obligation in administrative powers - right of a gazetted government servant to require referral to an Administrative Tribunal - avoidance of redundancy in statutory construction - obligation to refer upon valid requestReference to Tribunal on request by gazetted government servant under Rule 4(2) - discretion conferred by Rule 4(1) vs mandatory effect of Rule 4(2) - Rule 4(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947, obliges the Governor to refer the case of a gazetted government servant to the Administrative Tribunal when the servant makes such a request. - HELD THAT: - Rule 4(1) plainly confers a discretion on the Governor to refer certain classes of cases to the Tribunal. Rule 4(2), however, deals specifically with gazetted government servants and grants them the right to make a request that their case be referred to the Tribunal. Read in context, giving the word 'may' in sub-rule (2) the same discretionary meaning as in sub-rule (1) would render sub-rule (2) redundant. The court applied the settled principle that the word 'may' can be construed as 'shall' or 'must' where necessary to carry out the manifest purpose of the provision and to avoid surplusage. Because the rule-making authority deliberately created a special provision for gazetted officers - who otherwise fall within the Governor's general discretion under sub-rule (1) - the proper construction is that a valid request by a gazetted government servant imposes an obligation on the Governor to refer the matter to the Tribunal. The respondent made such a request and the Governor did not comply; accordingly the proceedings instituted otherwise were rightly quashed by the High Court.The Governor is bound to refer a gazetted government servant's case to the Administrative Tribunal upon the servant's request; proceedings conducted otherwise were quashed.Final Conclusion: The High Court's order quashing the proposed disciplinary proceedings (on the ground that the respondent's request for referral to the Administrative Tribunal under Rule 4(2) was not complied with) is upheld. The appeal is dismissed with costs. 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.