LexR. P. KAPUR versus PRATAP SINGH KAIRON AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1963
R. P. Kapur
v.
Pratap Singh
Kairon and
Otht:rs
Das Gupta J.
1963
Aug11st, 2
224
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1964]
the Inquiries Act would amount to contempt of the crimi-
nal court, we are clearly of opinion that it is wholly un-
desirable that the enquiry under the Inquiries Act should
be held at the same time when the trial before the crimi-
nal court is going on. No particular reason has been shown
to exist which makes the immediate commencement of the
enquiry essential or otherwise desirable. We think it pro-
per therefore that the enquiry under the Inquiries
Act
should not proceed so long as the appellant's complaint
against Dhingra is not finally disposed of.
While therefore, we have come to the conclusion that
the High Court has rightly refused to issue to the appellant
writs prayed for to quash the Government's order for en-
quiry against him and the other prayers mentioned in the
petition, we direct that the enquiry should not take place
so long as the appellant's complaint against Dhingra is not
finally disposed of. The parties will bear their own costs.
Appeal dismissed.
R.P. KAPUR
ti,
PRATAP SINGH KAIRON AND OTHERS
(S.K. DAS, ACTING C.J., P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A.K. SAR-
KAR, K.N. WANCHoo, M. HmAYATULLAH, K.C. DAS
GUPTA AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR JJ.)
Civil Servant-A member of the Indian Civil Service en1ployed
in the State of Punjab-Enquiry under order of Governor-whether
competent-"Not removable from his appointment without the
sanction
of
Government"-Meaning
of-The Public
Servants
(Inquiries) Act, 1850, s. 2.
The appellant joined the Indian Civil Service in 1938 and
after serving in other capacities was employed under the Punjab
Government since 1948. On May 26, 1961, an enquiry was started
against him by the Punjab Government under s. 2 of the Public
Servant (Inquiries) Act, 1850. He filed a petition in the Punjab
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the
validity of the order of the Punjab Government but his petition was
dismissed.
He came to this Court by special leave.
-
...
-
-
4 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
225
During the hearing of the appeal a question arose whether
the Government of the State of Punjab was competent to order
the enquiry against the appellant under s. 2 of the Public Servants
{Inquiries) Act, 1850. The Bench hearing the appeal was of the
opinion that s. 2 required three conditions to be satisfied before
a formal and public enquiry could be ordered. The first condition
was that the Government should be of opinion that there were
good grounds for making such a formal and public enquiry. The
second condition was that the enquiry could be directed by the
Government against a servant in the service of that Governmenr
The third condition was that the person should not be removable
from his appointment without the sanction of that Government.
The Bench held that the first two conditions were satisfied in the
present case.
As regards the third condition, the Bench referred
to a larger Bench the question as to the mt:aning of the following
words in section 2 of the Inquiries Act: "not removable from his
appointment without the sanction of the Government."
Held by Das Acting C. J., Gajendragadkar, Sarkar, Hidaya-
tullah, JJ. {Wanchoo, Das Gupta and Ayyangar JJ. dissenting) that
the third condition in s. 2 of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act,
1850 was also satisfied in this case.
Per, Das, Acting C. J., Gajendragadkar, Sarkar and Hidaya-
tullah, JJ: Section 23 of the Act furnishes the key to find out which
Government is to hold the inquiry. Where the officer is in the ser-
vice of a particular Government and is also employed under it the
position is clear. When Officers in the service of the Central Govern-
ment are deputed to States and vice versa and while they are on such
deputation, they are "employed under" the Government to which
they are deputed.
If by "employed under" in s. 2 were meant
"in the service of", s. 23 of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act,
1850, would hardly be needed. If an officer is in the service of
the Central Government and
is
also serving with the Central
Government, the State Government cannot possibly hold an en-
quiry.
The same is true of officers in the service of the State
Governments and serving with the State Governments.
In their
case the Central Government can have no hold. It is only when
th~re is ~n exchange of officers between GovernmentExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.