State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Keshav
- SCC(1996) 2 SCC 21
- Neutral1996 INSC 7
- SCR[1996] 1 SCR 3
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where disciplinary proceedings are initiated against a retired government employee pursuant to the Rules of Business made by the Governor under Article 166(3) of the Constitution, the Governor need not exercise personal satisfaction as a prerequisite; the decision to initiate such proceedings may be taken by the competent authority designated under the Business Rules, as the Governor exercises executive power through the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and the allocation of subjects to Ministers under the Rules of Business. The executive power of the Government is exercised in accordance with Article 162 read with the Rules of Business made under Article 166(3), and administrative matters need not receive the Governor's personal attention except where the Constitution expressly requires the exercise of personal discretion. Where disciplinary proceedings against a retired government employee are validly initiated in accordance with the applicable Rules of Business, the competent authority has the power to proceed with the enquiry as contemplated under the Pension Rules, and such enquiry must be conducted expeditiously, ordinarily to be completed within one year from the date of the order permitting the enquiry to proceed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the M.P. High Court passed on July 14, 1986 in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.3382/85. The facts are that the respondent while working as Agriculture Engineer in the Directorate of Agriculture is alleged to have committed misconduct. Consequently, after his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation on July 31, 1982, proceedings were sought to be initiated against him and notice therefor was issued on July 28, 1984. He filed a writ petition on October 14, 1985 calling in question the jurisdiction of the Government to initiate proceedings. The High Court in the impugned order held that the Governor has to personally satisfy himself of the necessity to initiate proceedings and since the Governor has not passed the order, the Government cannot go into the question and conduct disciplinary proceedings against the respondent. Hence, the writ petition was allowed.
The controversy is no longer res integra as in C.A. No.11536/95 State of M.P. & Ors. vs. Dr. Yashwant Trimbak, to which one of us Pattanaik, J. was a member, this Court elaborately had considered the controversy and had held that the Governor need not act on personal satisfaction. Under Article 166(3) of the Constitution, the Governor has made Business rule for convenient transaction of the business of the Government and the question of sanction to prosecute in the case is dealt with by the Council of Ministers in accordance with the Rules of Business.
It is settled law that the Governor exercises the executive power of the Government with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The executive power of the Government is carried on by Article 162 in accordance with the Rules of Business made by the Governor under Article 166(3). The Business Rules and Instructions issued thereunder allocate various subjects to the Ministers and cases be appropriately dealt with at different levels of the Government. All the decisions need not be circulated nor the Governor is saddled with matters of administrative routine except where the Constitution enjoins him to exercise his personal discretion. Since the action was initiated according to the Business Rules the competent authority, therefore, is within its power to proceed with the enquiry as contemplated under the Pension Rules. The enquiry would be conducted according to Rules as expeditiously as possible and orders would be passed soon thereafter. It may be done within one year from the date of receipt of the order.
The appeal is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances, without costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free