Mandatory tribunal reference for gazetted servants: "may" in Rule 4(2) was read as imposing a duty on the Governor.

Rule 4(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947 was construed as conferring an enforceable right on a gazetted government servant to have the case referred to the Tribunal on request. Reading the provision as merely discretionary would make it redundant beside Rule 4(1), which already vested discretion in the Governor for specified disciplinary matters. On that scheme, the word "may" in Rule 4(2) was treated as mandatory in effect, so the Governor is bound to make the reference when the servant seeks it.

---

---

Issues: Whether Rule 4(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947 confers a discretion on the Governor to refer the case of a gazetted government servant to the Tribunal on the servant's request, or imposes an obligation to do so.

Analysis: Rule 4(1) vested discretion in the Governor to refer specified disciplinary matters to the Tribunal. Rule 4(2) dealt separately with gazetted government servants and permitted them to seek reference of their cases to the Tribunal. The context showed that if the word "may" in Rule 4(2) were read as discretionary, the sub-rule would add nothing to Rule 4(1) and would become redundant. The scheme and purpose of the provision indicated that the rule-making authority intended to give gazetted government servants an enforceable option to have their cases tried by the Tribunal. In this setting, the word "may" was construed as imposing a duty rather than leaving the matter to unfettered executive choice.

Conclusion: Rule 4(2) is mandatory in effect, and the Governor is bound to refer the case of a gazetted government servant to the Tribunal when such a request is made.

---