LexJAI JAI RAM AND ORS. versus THE U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LUCKNOW AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• JAi JAi RAM AND ORS. v. THE U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LUCKNOW AND ORS. JULY 9, 1996 [S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] Service Law : A B U.P. Fundamental Rules/Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950: C Rule 9(7-B )/ss.34 & 241(2)(b )-'Govemment servant'-Disciplinary ac- tion against-Drivers/conductors of erstwhile U.P. Govemment Roadways working on deputation with U.P. State Road Transport Corporation-Ter- mination/suspension orders passed against said employees by officers who also were on deputation with Corporation and were either appointing D authorities of such en1ployees or senior in rank to such authorities under erstwhile U.P. Government Roadways-Held, tennination/suspension orders are not violative of Article 311 of the Constitution-Definition of temt "Government servant" in rule 9(7-B) is for the purpose of the rules and is not relevant for the purpose of Article 31 /. E Constitution of India, 1950: Article 311--Govemment employees on deputation-- Disciplinary ac- tion against-Temtination/suspension orders against employees of erstwhile U.P. Government Roadways while they were on deputation with U.P. State Road Transport Corporation-Held, officers who passed the orders also continued as government sen•ants even though they were on deputation with the Corporation and they were such officers who were either appointing authorities of such employees or senior in rank to such authorities under U.P. Government Roadways-Disciplinary actions sustained. F G The appellants were drivers/conductors in the erstwhile U.P. Govern- ment Roadways. On coming into operation of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation w.e.1'. 1.6.1972, the appellants as well as the officers including the appointing authorities of the appellants under the erstwhile U.P. Government Roadways were deemed to be on deputation with the H 413 414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A Corporation w.e.f. 1.6.1972. Later, while the appellants continued to be on deputation, disciplinary actions were taken against them. Consequently services of some of the appellants were terminated and some of them were placed under suspension. The termination orders '"ere challenged before the Tribunal on the ground that as the employees were on deputation with B the Corporation and the U.P. Government continued to be their employer, the Corporation was n.ot competent to take disciplinary action against them. The Tribunal allowed their applications. The Corporation chal- lenged the order of the Tribunal by filing writ petitions before the High Court. The persons placed under suspension also challenged the orders of the Corporation in another writ petition. The contention of the appellants C before the High Court was that since the appellants were Government sen1ants, the Corporation or its officers including those who \\-'ere on deputation were not competent to pass the orders and only the oflicers serving under the State Government could pass such orders. The Full Hench of the High Court held that the officers who took the disciplinary D actions against the appellants were such officers who were either the appointing authorities of the appellants or senior in rank to such authorities under the State Government and were sent to the Corporation E on deputation and as such they were competent to take the disciplinary actions against the appellants. Aggrieved, the appellants filed the present appeals. Dismissing the appeals, this Court HELD : 1. The disciplinary actions against the appellants and the judgment of the High Court are sustained. F 2.1. A Government servant remains a Government servant even when he is sent on deputation to foreign service. Like the ap11ellants, the officer whose actions/orders have been challenged also continued as Government servant at the time when the actions were taken. The definition of the term "Government servant" in rule 9(7-B) of the U.P. Fnndamental Rules is for G the purpose of the said rules and, therefore, not relevant for the purpose of Article 311 of the Constitution. [ 418-G, DJ 2.2. Though the appellants were government servants even while serving under the Corporation and were entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution, Article 311 gives protection to a govern- H ment servant against dismissal or removal by an authority subordinate to JAI.IAIRAM V. U.P.STATERD.TPT. [NANAVATI,J.] 415 that by which he was appoin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.