LexSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. versus DR. YASHWANT TRIMBAK
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. v. DR. YASHWANT TRIMBAK DECEMBER 4, 1995 B [S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] Constitution of India-Article 166(2) 309-Madhya Pradesh Civil Ser- vices--Pension Rule 1976--Rule 9(2)(b )(irSanction of Governor to institute departmental proceedings-W11ether order for sanction has to be made by the C Govemor-W/1ether court can examine validity of duly authenticated order passed in the name of the Governo,-Held, order expressed in the name of Governor and duly authenticated is immune from attack on the ground that it is not made or executed by the Governor-Signature of person auth01ised under authentication rules signifies consent of Governor. D Constitution of India-Article 166(3)-Madhya Pradesh Civil Ser- vices--Pension Rules 1976-Rule 9(2)(b)(irSanction of Governor to in- stitute departmental proceeding;-Wliether Governor required to accord sanction,_ or whether Council of Ministers can also give sanction-Held, excepting matters with respect to which Governor is required to exercise E discretion, personal satisfaction of Governor not requirec}-Power to accord sanction is executive action of government provided under Rules of Business and not a matter where Governor is required to act in his discretion-Artie/es 154, 166( 1) and (2rRules of Business. The respondent retired from the post of Director, Institute of Animal F Health and Veterinary Biological Products, Mhow on July 31, 1983. Gross financial irregularities during the period the respondent was Director, from 1977 onwards, having been noticed, a letter was issued on April 6, 1985 proposing an enquiry against him. Chargesheet was served on him on April 2, 1986 and departmental enquiry was ordered. The appropriate G authority further withheld 50 per cent of his pension and a part of the gratuity amount of the respondent. The respondent challenged the enquiry and the order withholding part of the pension and gratuity. The Tribunal, quashed the departmental proceedings and the consequential order, holding that the sanction of the H Governor himself was necessary and therefore departmental proceedings 128 STATE v. Y. TRIMBAK 129 could not be initiated under the orders of the Council of Ministers. A In appeal before this Court it was contended for the State that the order initiating departmental enquiry having been passed in the name and by order of the Governor in terms of Article 166(2) of the Constitution, the validity of the order could not be called in question on the ground that it was not an order executed by the Governor. Moreover, the Governor having allocated the business of the State Government to be transacted by the different Ministers under the Rules of Business made under Article 166(3), and admittedly the Council of Ministers having accorded sanction, there was no infirmity with the order. B c For the respondent it was contended that the Pension Rules being framed under Article 309 and Rule 9(2)(b)(i) having conferred power of sanction on the Governor, it was the Governor alone who was entitled to accord sanction. He further contended that when the sanction had not been accorded by the Governor himself, the bar, under Article 166(2) to ques- D tioning the order would not be attracted. The two questions before this Court were whether the order initiating departmental proceedings which was served upon the respondent by a duly authenticated order passed in the name of the Governor was open to examination by the Court; and whether the power to accord sanction conferred on the Governor under Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the Pension rules 1916 can at all be conferred on the Council of Ministers by making Roles of Business under Article 166(3) of the Constitution. Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. The order which is expressed in the name of the Governor and is duly authenticated cannot be questioned in any court on the ground that it is not made or executed by the Governor. The signature of the E F person authorised under the authentication rules to sign the document G signifies the consent of the Governor as well as the acceptance of the advice rendered by the concerned Minister. It is not possible to accept the contention that the Governor being the authority to accord sanction and the Governor not having accorded sanction, the prohibition contained in Article 166(2) cannot be attracted and that the court's powers to examine is not taken away. [1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.