BACHHITTAR SINGH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1962] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 713 · Decided: 07-03-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

3 s.c.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
713 
BACHHITTAR SINGH 
v. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., K. SUBBA RAO, N. RAJAGOPALA 
AYYANGAB, J. R. MUDHOLKAB and 
T. L. VENKATARAMA AIYAB, JJ.) 
Public Servant-Disciplinary 
Proceeding-Dismissal-
Appeal--Minister passing order on file-Order not communicat-
ed-Whether binding-If order can be varied-Oh.ief Minister 
passing .final order-Validity-Rules of Business of Punjab 
Government, 
rr. 4, 8, 25, 
28-0onstitution 
of 
India 
Arts. 166, 311. 
The appellant was appointed a qanungo in Pepsu and 
latter as Assistant Consolidation Officer. 
Complaints having 
been received against him, an enquiry was held as a result of 
which he was dismissed by the Revenue Secretary. Against 
this order he preferred an appeal to the State Government. 
The Revenue Minister Pepsu wrote on the file that dismissal 
would be too hard and instead he should be reverted as 
qanungo but no written order to that effect was served upon the 
appellant. After merger of. Pepsu with Punjab, the Revenue 
Minister Punjab sent up the file to the ChiefMinister with the 
remarks "C.M. may kindly advise". The Chief Minister 
passed the order confirming the dismissal. and the order was 
duly 
communicated 
to the appellant. 
The 
appellant 
challenged 
the order of the Chief 'Minister 
Punjab 
on the grounrl 
that the Chief Minister 
Punjab could 
not sit in review on the order of the Revenue· Minister 
Pepsu and that the Chief Minister was not competent to deal 
with the matter as it pertained to the portfolio of the Revenue 
Minister. 
Held, that the order of the Revenue Minister Pepsu 
could not amount to an order by the State Government unless 
it was expressed in the name of Rajpramukh as required by 
Art. 166(1) of the Constitution and was then communicated to 
the appellant. 
Until the order was so communicated it was 
only of a provisional character and could be reconsidered 
over and 8Ver again. 
Before communication the order was 
binding neither on the appellant nor on the State Government. 
State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukdev Singh A.l.R. (1961) 
f S.C.R~ 371, referred to. 
1962 
1962 
Boehhiuar Singh 
•• 
Thr Slalr of Punjab 
1tt111iholk1t .T. 
714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962] SUPP. 
Held, further, that the Chief Minister Punjab 
wa' 
competent to deal with the appeal and to pass the order which 
he did. Under r. 25 of the Rules of Business of the Punjab 
Government the matter undoubtedly related to the portfolio 
of the Revenue Minister, But since under r. 28(1 )(ii) and I xix) 
which 
provide 
that cases 
involving 
questions \ of 
policy 
and 
cases 
of 
administrat.ivc 
importance 
and 
such other 
cases 
or 
classes of cases 
as 
the 
t!:hief Minister may consider necessary shall be referred to the 
Chief Minister, the case wa• properly referred to the Chief 
Minister. 
Under r. 4 the order passed by the Chief :Vlinistor, 
r.ve11 though it pertained to the portfolio of the Revenue 
Minister, would be dcen1cd to be an order of tlic Council of 
i\:finistcrs. 
It would be the Chief Ministers advice to the 
Governor, 
for which the Council of ~finistcrs \\'Ottlrl be 
collectively responsible and action taken thereon v.·otild be the 
action of the Government. 
'~ 
Departmental proceedings cannot be dividerl into t\vo 
parts : (i) enquiry and (ii) taking Of acdon ; there is one con ti· 
nuous proceeding though there are 
t~vo stages. 
Any action 
decided to he taken a!lainst a public servant found guilty e 
misconduct is a judicial order and as such it cannot be varierlf 
at the will of the authority. 
Crvrr, Arrm.r,ATE JumsnICTION : Civil Appeal 
1'\o. 155 of 1961. 
Appeal by the special Ieavo from t.ht~ judgment 
and order dated JamH\r.I' 5, 1959, of tl:e PunjBb 
High Court in Civil \Vrit Application No. 4fi0 of 
1957. 
I. M. !Ail, and M. L. Armarwal, for the appel-
lant. 
S. M. Sikri, Advocate·G'eneral }or the State of 
Punjab, N. S. Bindra and P. D. Menon, for the res-
pondents. 
1!162. ;\farch 7. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
MenHOLKAH, .J.-This i;: an appeal by special 
leave against tho judgment of the Punjab High 
Court 1lismissing the appellant's petition under 
Art. 226 of the Constitution. 
3 S.C~R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
715 
The appellant was appointed a qanungo in the 
former Stato of PEPSU in the year 1950. On De-
cember l, 1953 he was appointed Assistant Consoli-
dation Officer. Certain complaints having been 
received regarding tampering with official records 
he was s
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.