A. N. D' SILVA versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1962] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 968 · Decided: 06-12-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1151 
J,lha Naad 
v. 
Tb. Hon' bit Jud11s 
of the PURjab 
Hith Co111I 
DasJ. 
1961 
Dec,,,,ber f. 
968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962] SUPP. ,,...
earlier, that each High Court in the country should 
have disciplinary jurisdiction over the Advocates 
on its rolls. 
'fhe provisions of the Adaptation 
order have maintained this position. 
In our opinion, the High Court rightly reject-
ed the appellant's applicatiou. The appeal is acoor· 
dingly dismissed. 
In the circumstances of the case we make no • 
order as to costs. But the appellant who has filed 
the appeal as a pauper is directed to pay the 
court-fees which would have been paid by him 
if he had not been permitted to appeal as a 
pauper. 
Appeal dismissed. 
A. N. D' SILVA 
"· 
UNION OF INDIA 
(K. N. WANCHOO and J.C. SHAH, JJ.) 
Government S.rvant-Disciplinary proceedings-Punish-
ment-Proposal by enquiry officer, if binding on the punishing 
authority-Powers of President-Union Publio Service Oommi&-
sion-Whether an appelliite authority over E"'IJUiry Officer-
Advice, if binding on Preaident-Oomtitution of India, Art.. 
811, 320: 
D, a Divisional Engineer of Po•ts and Telegraphs was 
suspended from service for 
irre~ularities in the matter of 
allotment of telephones. The charges were firstly, that irregu-
larities were committed by him with a view to secure illegal 
gratification for himself and others and secondly, that he 
was a party to the commission of irregularities having there-
by facilitated acceptance of illegal gratification by his subor-
dinates. 
The enquiry officer found him guilty of mis-
demeanour by disobeying orders expressly issued. The report 
of the Enquiry Officer was sent by the President to the Union 
Public Service Commission for their recommendations. 
In 
the meantime D was informed that the Government of India 
tiad dec\ped tp di•idss him subject to the advice of the Unio11 
• 
~ 
(l)S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
969 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Public Service Commi"ion, and that he should show cause 
why he should not be dismis;rd. The Public Service Commis-
sion agreed with the view of the Enquiry Officer that there 
was contravention of th' specific orders issued by granting 
''casual connections" from time to time, but the Commissivn 
was of the opinion th~t this may amount to neglect to open 
defiance of the order of his superior and though there may 
be suspicion, there was nothing on the record to connect D 
with rrcriving illegal gratification, and advised that D •be 
retired compulsorily'. The appellant was informed that the 
P1 esident 11ad come to the conclusion that he was guilty of 
gross negligence and disobedience of orders, and though the 
Union Public Service Commission had advised that he be retired 
compulsorily as it was not a permi,sible punishment under the 
rules, the President had decided that D should be removed 
from service with immediate effect. The appellant's writ 
petition to the High Court of the Punjab for mandamus and 
certiorari was dismissed and thereafter he came up by special 
leave to this Court . 
Held, that the Civil Service Rules merely prescribe 
diverse punishments which may be imposed upon a delinquent 
public servant ; the rules do not provide for specific punish· 
ments for different misdemeanours. The Rules leave it to the 
discretion of the punishing authority to select the appropriate 
punishment having regard to the gravity of the misdemeanour. 
It is not for the enquiry authority to propose punishment. 
The 
power 
of the 
Prtsident to 
impose punish· 
mcnt 
for 
misdcmeanour 
found 
proved 
against 
a 
delinquent publio servant, is unrestricted and is not circum· 
scribed by the proposal about punishment by the enquiry 
officer which the latter was incompetent to make. It was 
for the President to arrive at a tentative conclusion as to the 
guilt of the delinquent public servant and 
to propose 
the appropriate 
punishment. The Constitution 
merely 
guarantees the protection of a reasonable opportunity of 
showing canse against 
the action proposed ; it does not 
guarantee that the punishment sha!I not be more severe than 
a prescribed punishment. 
The President is by Art. 320 of the Constitution required 
to consult the Union Public Service Commission in discipli-
nary matters but the President is not bound by the advice of 
the Commission. The Union Public Service Commission is 
not an appellate authority over an Enquiry Officer. 
In the present case, in imposing punishment of remo-
val from servi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.