STATE OF GUJARAT versus AKHILESH C. BHARGAV & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 1091 · Decided: 26-08-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA, M.M. DUTT · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
'( 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
A 
v. 
AKHILESH C. BHARGAV & ORS. 
AUGUST 26, 1987 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND MURARI MOHON DUTT, JJ.] 
B 
Indian Police Service (Probation) Rules, 1954: Rules 3(1), 3(3) 
and 12(bb)-Probationer continuing in service beyond period of 
probation-Effect of-Discharge from service of such probationer-
Whether valid. 
Administrative Law: 
Service Rules-Administrative Instructions issued 'to cover gap 
where there be vacuum or lacuna-Whether valid. 
c 
The first respondent was appointed to the Indian Police Service on 
D 
4. 7 .1969 and allotted to the Gujarat State Cadre. He was on probation 
and there was no order of extention of probation. He was discharged by 
the impugned order dated 9.4. 74. 
The order of discharge was assailed by the first respondent. A 
Single Judge of the High Court annulled the order. Two appeals were 
preferred by the Union of India and the State to the Division Bench 
which came to the same conclusion, though for different reasons. 
The State filed an appeal before this Court, which was resisted by 
E 
the respondent, contending that reference to Rule 12(bb) of the Indian 
Police Service (Probation) Rules, 1954 brought into the otherwise 
F 
innocuous order stigma in sufficient measure warranting a proceeding 
of the nature contemplated under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of 
India and that the respondent should have been treated as a confirmed 
officer of the cadre al the time the order of discharge was made. 
,,. 
On behalf of the State it was contended that no order of extension 
G 
of probation was necessary to be made as the process of confirmation 
was not automatic and even if the two year period as provided in Rule 
3(1) of the Probation Rules had expired, confirmation would not ipso 
facto follow and a special order had to be made. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
1091 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
p 
1092 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] 3 S.C.R. 
HELD: t. The first respondent having become a confirmed 
officer of the Gujarat IPS cadre, under Rule 12(bb) of the Indian Police 
Service Rules, 1954 his services could not be brought to an end by an 
order of discharge since the said Rules bad no application for officer 
confirmed in the cadre. Proceedings in accordance with law were, 
therefore, necessary to terminate his ~ervice. [1096A-CJ 
2.1 While the Probation Rules prescribed an initial period of two 
years of probation they did not provide any optimum period of proba-
lion. Administrative instructions issued by the Government of India on 
16th March, 1973 indicating the guidelines to be followed in the matter 
laid down that, save for exceptional reasons, the period of probation 
should not be extended by more than one year and no member of the 
service should, by convention, be kept on probation for more than 
double the normal period i.e. 4 years. [1094F-G; 109SA-B) 
2.2 Within the limits of executive powers under the Constitu-
tional scheme it is open to the apropriate Government to issue instruc-
lions to cover the gap where there be any vacuum or lacuna. Since 
instructions do not run counter to the mies in existence, the validity of 
the instructions cannot be disputed., [ 109SC} 
In the instant case, there was no order of extension and the order 
of discharge is about five years after the appointment. The respondent, 
therefore, stood confirmed in the cadre on the relevant date when be 
was discharged. [1096A) 
Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., [1968] 1 SCR 
111; State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh, [1968] 3 SCR 1 and Moti Ram 
Deka etc. v. General Manager, N.E.F. Railways, Maligaon, Pandu 
etc., [1964] 5 SCR 683, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1273 
of 1979. 
; 
~ 
.. 
-
y 
~ 
~· -
y 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.11.1978 of the Gujarat 
G High Court in L.P.A. No. 206 of 1978. 
~ 
T.U. Mehta, G.A. Shah, Mrs. H. Wahi, M.N. Shroff and 
K.M.M. Khan for the Appellant. 
S.N, Kacker, Anil Kumar Gupta, Brij Bhushan Sharma and 
H N.P. Mahindra for Respondent No. 1. 
-
STATE OF GUJARAT v. A.C. BHARGAV 
1093 
V .C. Mahajan, C. Ramesh and Miss A. Subhashini for Res· A 
pondent No. 2. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
This appeal by Special leave is against the appellate order of the B 
Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court. Respondent No. 1 was 
appointed to the Indian Police Service on 4.7.1969 and has been dis· 
charged by the impugned order dated 9.4.1974. After he was 
appointed by the Union of India h
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.