GIAN SINGH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1962] 3 S.C.R. 515 · Decided: 11-09-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
-
• 
3 :i.O.R.. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
GIAN SINGH 
v. 
THE 8TATE OF PUNJAB 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SUBBA RAO, 
M. HrnAYATULLAH, J. C. SHAH and 
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) 
5115 
Public Servant-T•h•ildar in Punjab--R•flV>f!fJl /roM 
servict-Financial Oommis&ioner, if competent to rttnotJt-Pu1tjab 
Land R•venue Act, 1887, 8,9,-Punjab Teh•ildari Rulei, 1932-
floi:ernmrnt of India Act, 1935 ( 25 & 26 Ged. 5 ch,42) •· 241-
Go1Jfrnment of India (Co nmencement and Tran&itory Proviaion~) 
Vrd.r, 1936 cl. 15 (2)-Adaptation of Indian Laws Order, 1937. 
The Punjab Tehsildari Rules, 1932, were framed under 
s. 9 of the P.rnjab Land Revenue Act, 1837, by the Finan-
cial Commissioner. 
They 
conferred authority 
upon the 
Financial Commissioner to appoint and to rernove Tehsila 
d:ir~ from service. Aftt:r the enactment of the Government 
of India Act, 1935, '· 9 was amended by the Adaptation of 
Indian laws Order, 1937, and the pfJwer of the Financial 
Commissioni:-r to make such 
rules 
was abrogated. 
The 
appellant, 
who was 
a 
Tehsildar, was 
dismissed by the 
Financial Commissioner in 1953. The appellant contended 
that the Financial 
Commissioner 
was not 
competent to 
remove him 
from service as 
his p')wers to make 
rule' 
regarding appointment and rrmoval from se1vice ofTehsildars 
were abrogated and the Tehsildari RHles lost their vitality 
a• they .were not preserved by the Government of In.d ia Act, 
1935, or by the Adaptation 01 der. 
Hfld, (per 
Gajendragadkar, Subba Rao, Hidayatullah 
and Shah,JJ., Dayal, J., contra.) that notwithstanding the 
abrogation of the powers of the Financial Commissioner to 
frame rules, the "fehsildari rules, 1932 continued in force and 
the Financial 
Commissioner was competent 
to re-move 
the appellant from Service. 
By the combined operation of 
cl. 15 (2) of the Government of India (Commencement and 
Tran .itory Provisions Order, 1936, and the Adaptation Order, 
1937, the condition of service app 1icab1e to civil servants re·· 
mained unaltered, until other provisions were made under the 
Government of India Act, 1935. !"hough s. 241 of the Govern-
~ ment of India Act, 1935 provided that the conditions of service 
.. of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a province, 
were to be such a~ may be prescribed by rules made 
by the 
Governor, or by persons authorised by him, s. 241 was itself 
Subject to cl. 15(2) of the 1936 Order. 
It was not shown that 
1961 
lfMJ 
Gia11 Sinth 
v. 
Th, Statt of 
Pun1al> 
SW]. 
11 
516 ' 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1962J 
th'Se rules were superseded or abrogated by the Civil Service 
Rules made by the Government of Punjab in 1941. 
Per, Dayal, J.-The Financial Comn1issioncr was not the 
competent authority to remove the appellant from service. 
Section HI (IJ wh;ch provided that the Governor would be 
the appointing and consequently the dismissing authority 
for all civil servants in the service of the Province abrogated 
the Tesildari Rules which \\'ere inconsistent 
with it and 
cl. 15 (2) of the Transitory Order, 
19%, did not save them. 
Even if rl. 15 (2) preserved these Rules, the reference to the 
Financial Commissioner th.rein had to be read as 
refe-
rence to the Governor in view of para. i of the Adaptation 
Order. 
The Civil Service 
Rules framed by the Govern-
ment in 1941 governed the conditions of service of Teh•ildars 
and Naib Tehsildars and the Tehsildari Rules ceased to be opera-
tive from 1941 even if they continued to be effective till then in 
vie\\• of the provisions of the Transitory Order. 
From April I, 
1953, the Punjab Civil Service Rules, 
1953, were in foree 
which applied to the case and the Financial Commission" 
\¥as not sho\vn to be one of the authorities 
prescrib~d by the 
Government in the rules regulating the appointment and 
conditions of service of Tehs;ldars and Naih Teh•ildan. 
C1nL APPELLATE JumsmcTroN : Civil Appeal 
~o. 515 of 1960. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated 
Septcm her 3, 1958, of tho Punjab High Court in 
Letter8 Patent A ppcal No. 82 of J9ij7. 
lihagat Singh Chau:lri ancl K. R. Choudhri, for 
the appellant. 
S. M. Sikri, Aduowte-Geneml for the State of 
Punjab, 
Gop~l Singl1 and P. n. Menon, for the 
rcilpondcnts. 
HHi I. Dcccm her 11. The .Judgment of Gajondra-
gadknr. Subba Rao, Hiclayatullah and Shah, JJ., 
was dcliverf'd by 
)>,. 
-
.. 
SHAH, .J.-Sardar Gian Singh-hereinafter 
Called the appellant-was recruited in I 92i as a 
Naib Tehsildar m the Revenue department of the 
..

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