PRAHALAD SHARMA versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 594 · Decided: 24-02-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BRIJESH KUMAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

'. 
A 
PRAHALAD SHARMA 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 24, 2004 
B 
[BRIJESH KUMAR AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
c 13. 
UP. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999: Rule 
Service Ru/es-Adoption of-By a Government Corporation through a 
resolution-Applicability of-In disciplinary proceedings-Against an employee 
o] the Corporation-Employee of the Corporation dismissed by MD of the 
Corporation-But, in appeal, Chairman of the Corporation reinstated the 
D emp/oyee-cState Government, using its revisional power under R. 13, reversed 
the Chairman's order-High Court dismissed employee's writ petition-
Correctness of-Held: By adopting the Rules same procedure or protection of 
the employees of the Corporation would be applicab/e-How_ever, the re1'isiona/ 
power would not vfst in the State Government-It would only be exercised by 
E the Appellate authority i.e .. the Chairman of the Corporation-Hence, High 
Court judgment not sustainable. 
F 
G 
H 
Words & Phrases: 
"Mutatis mutandis ". 
The appellant was working as a Service Engineer in the U.P. State Agro 
Industrial Corporation, which was a Government company. The Managing 
Director of the Corporation dismissed the appellant from service. The 
Appellate authority i.e. the Chairman of the Corporation allowed the appeal 
preferred by the appellant and reinstated him in service. 
Against the order passed by the Chairman, the revisional power of the 
State Government under Rule 13 of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline 
and Appeal) Rules, 1999 was invoked by the Corporation. The State 
Government allowed the revision and found that the charges were proved 
594 
--
-
-
-
-
PRAHALAD SHARMA v. ST ATE 
595 
against the appellant. 
A 
The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition holding that by 
means of a resolution, the Corporation had mutatis mutandis adopted the 
U.P. Rules of 1999 and, therefore, the provisions of the said Rules including 
Rule 13 were applicable to the employees of the Corporation. Hence the B 
appeal. 
The following question arose before the Court: 
"Whether or not the revisional power under Rule 13 of the U.P. 
Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 was available to C 
the State Government in relation to the employees of the Corporation"? 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. A Corporation or any other organization may adopt the rules 
on any subject, as may be applicable in the State Government or any other D 
organization. However, by doing so only the rules are adopted not the 
authorities unless specifically provided for. Otherwise, it would result in a 
queer situation where the authorities of the organization would start exercising 
those powers in relation to the matters of the organization adopting the rules, 
which would obviously not be permissible. If the organization adopts the rules 
pertaining to disciplinary matters as prevalent in the Government or other E 
organization, it would only mean that same procedure would be applicable 
in respect of the employees of the organization adopting the rules namely, 
the manner of holding an enquiry into the charges, opportunity of hearing, 
provision for appeal or revision would be applicable in respect of the 
employees of the organization adopting the rules but such powers would be 
exercisable by the corresponding authorities in the organization adopting the 
rules. If some power is vested in a particular authority, for example, in this 
case in the State Government or for that matter it could be with any other 
officer or functionary of the State Government that would not subject the 
employees of a Corporation or organization to the control of those authorities 
F 
of the organization whose rules have been adopted. If an appeal is provided G 
to be preferred against an order of punishment to an authority who is higher 
than the punishing authority, that remedy may be available to the employees 
of the organization adopting the rules for preferring the appeal to the higher 
authority of his own organization but not that the appellate authority would 
also be the same belonging to the organization whose rules are adopted. 
H 
596 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 2 S.C.R. 
A Similarly, if any authority corresponding or parallel to the State Go-'Pernment 
is available in the Corporation such authority may exercise revisional powers 
as conferred upon the State Government in the U.P. Government Servants 
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.

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