KRISHAN MURARI LAL SEHGAL versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 956 · Decided: 09-02-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.K. GOSWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
H 
956 
KRISHAN MURARI LAL SEHGAL 
v. 
STATE OF Pl.JNJAB 
February 9, 1977 
[P. K. GOSWAMI AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] 
Constitutio11 of 111dia-A rticle 311 (1), dismissal by a person subordinate 
to appointing authority-States Reorganisation Act, 1956-Sec. 115(7), 116(1) 
-Varying conditions of service of an allocated Gol'emmelll servaiit to llis 
disadvantage-Effect of reorganisation-Different a111hority i11 state before and 
after reorganisation-Patiala & East Puniab States Unio11 Civil Serl'ices (P1111ish-
111ent & Appeals) Rules, 1953-Pepsu General Clauses Act-Sec. 2(41 )-
Meaning of State r.ovemment-Punjab Financial Commissioner's Office (State 
Service Class Ill) Rules, 1957-Central Government Circular dated 11-5-1957 
issued under States Reorga11isatio11 A ct, 1956. 
The appellant was appointed as a clerk in the Patiala State in 1948. 
On 
the formation of the new State of Punjab in 1956, the appellant was integrated 
in the service of the new State of Punjab as permanent Assistant. 
The appell-
ant overstayed leave and, therefore, after holding an enquiry the Financial 
Commissioner. Punjab dismissed him from service in October, 1959. 
Appell-
ant filed two suits. one for a declaration that his dismissal order was void and 
illegal second for arrears of salary on the basis that the dismissal was illegal. 
The trial Court decreed both the suits. 
The High Court in appeal reversed 
the decrees of the trial Court and dismissed the suits. 
In the appeals by certificate the appellant contended that the aopellant was 
confirmed in the State of Patiala bv the order of the Raj Pram1ikh. 
Before 
its integraiion he was governed by the Patiala and East Punjab States Union 
Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1953 which were made in exer-
cise of powers conferred by proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution. 
By 
a 
notification of the Punjab Government dated 9-2-1957 the said 1953 Rules 
were made applicable to the corresponding services from !st November, 1956 
·onwards till further orders in the new State of Punjab. 
Under the 1953 Rules, 
the State Government was tlie appropriate authority for dismissing members of 
Class III and IV. 
Under section 2(46) of the Pepsu General Clauses Act, 
1953. ·state Government means the Rai Pramukh. The appellant. therefore, 
contended that he cannot he removed from service by any authority subordinate 
to the Governor of Punjab and since the Financial Commissioner is an authority 
subordinate to the Governor. he was not competent to pass the order of dis-
missal. 
The respondent contended that the appointing authority for the post held 
by the appellant in the State of Punjab is the Financial Commissioner 
and, 
therefore. he is the appropriate authority under s. 116 (I) of the States Reorga-
nisation Act, 1956 
to impose the penalty of dismissal. 
Secondly, in 
the 
present case the Punjab Financial Commissioner's Office (State Services Class 
Ill) Rnles. 1957. applv. 
Although the said rules are more disadvantageous 
to the appellant since they have received the approval of the Central Govern-
ment by the General Circular dated 11-5-1957, the appellant was rightly dis-
missed bv the Financial Commissioner. 
Allowing the apDeals, 
HELD: I. Section 116(1) merely provides that the appellant shall continue 
to hold the same post in the new State of Punja·b and shall be d.eemed to 
have been duly appointed to such post by the Government of Pun1ab. 
The 
f~ct that in the new State of Punjab the Financial Comm!ssioner is the appro-
priate authority for appointing Assistants is abs?]utely meleyant. 
1:,Jnder s. 
115(7) of the Sta·tes Reorganisation Act the cond1hons of service apphcaole to 
.. 
" 
• 
• 
( 
.. 
-KRrSHAN ~MURARILAL v. PUNJA_B (Goswami., !.) 
957 
.a civil servant immediately before the appointed day cannot be varied to his 
A 
disadva·ntage except with the previous approval of the Central Government. 
·One of the condition ·of service of the apellant on the appointed day was tha-t 
since he was appointed by 1'.he State Government of Pepsu he could only be 
.. dismissed by the State Go\!ernment of Pepsu if he had contin.ued there. 
[961 H, 962 A] 
·2. The Memorandum of 11-5-1957 cannot be called in aid as previous 
·approval :·because the Punjab Financial Commissioner's Office Rules 1957 were . B 
promulgated on "28'2C1957 before the Circular dated 11-5-1957 was issued. No 
approval of the Central Government has been produced. 
Therefore, authority
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.