STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. versus SHARDUL SINGH

Citation: [1970] 3 S.C.R. 302 · Decided: 02-12-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

302 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. 
v. 
SHARDUL SINGH 
December 2, 1969 
(J. C. SHAH AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, Art. 311(1)-J/ the Authority e1npowered to 
.di.Hniss .'fhou/d itself iuitiate or conduct the enquiry-Article 309, proviso, 
---·'Conditions of service", meG-ning of. 
The Superintendent of Police jnitiatcd a departmental inquiry against 
B 
the respondent, who was a Sub-Inspector, with respect to certain charges, 
found him guilty, and forwarded the !report to the Inspector-General of 
C 
Police, who was the authority competent to dismiss him for necessary 
action. The Inspector-General sent a copy of the report to 'the respondent, 
1.:alled upon him to show cause against the proposed punishment of dis-
n1issal, considered his explanation, and passed an order dismissing him. 
The procedure followed was in accordance with Regulations 228 and 229 
-of th~ Ce'i1tral Provinces and Bcrar Police Regulations framed under s. 241 
of the Government of India Act, 1935, corresponding to Art. 309 of the 
Constitution. 
D 
On the question whether the Regulations were 
ultra vires because, 
undel' Art. 311, the authority empowered to dismiss 
(in this case the 
Jnspector~Gcneral) must have himself initiated or conducted the inquiry 
preceding the -dismissal, · 
HELD : Under the proviso to Art. 309. power is conferred on the 
Prcsi<lcnt of India and the Governor of a State to make rules lregulatitlg 
the condition-$ of service of persons appointed to the civil service of the 
Union or, the State; as the c~e may be, until provision in thaf behalf is 
nlade by, an Act of the appropriate Legislature. 
'Conditions of service' 
means all those conditions which regulate the holding of a post by a 
person Tight from the time of his appointment till his retirement and even 
heyond, in matters like pension etc., and includes rules relating to the 
disn1issal of an officer. Article 311 ( 1) confers an additional right on the 
•:ivil ·servant, namely, that no person holding a civil post shall be dismissed 
ur renioved by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appoint-
.. .-d. But for that Article rules could have been framed even in respect to 
these matters under Art. 309. Article 311(1) however, 
does 
not, in 
terms, provide that the '\'elevant disciplinary iriquiry ~hould also be initiat-
1.!<l or conducted by the authority mentioned in the Article. Therefore, 
rules could be framed under Art. 309 with respect to condition'S of service 
other than those in Art. 311(1) and hence, the Regulations 
were not 
;i11ra vires the Constitution. [306 B-E] 
Pradvat Kunzar Bose v. The Hon'hle the Chief Justice of CG·lcutta 
lligh c,;,,,1, [19551 2 S.C.R. 1331 and P. Bal•kotaiah v. Union of India. 
[1958/ S.C.R. !052. followed. 
E 
F 
G 
;\lorrh w·c.H f"rontier Pro\·inC<' V. Suraj Nar(lin"Anand, (1948) L.R. 75 
IA. -143. applied. 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2554 of 
1966. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
II 
M. P. STATE v. SHARDUL SINGH (Hegde, l.) 
303 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated November 4, 1965 
of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 646 of 
1964. 
I. N. Shroff, for the appellants. 
A. K. Sen, M. M. Kshatriya and G. S. Chatterjee, for the 
respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hegdc J. Scope of Art. 311(1) of the Constitution comes 
up for consideration in this appeal by certificate. The High Court 
of Madhya Pradesh has opined that the power of dismissal and 
removal referred to in Art. 311 ( 1) implies that the authorities 
mentioned in that Article must alone initiate and conduct the dis-
ciplinary proceeding culminating in the dismissal or removal of " 
delinquent officer. 
The respondent herein was a Sub-Inspector of Police in the 
State of Madhya Pradesh. A departmental enquiry was initiated 
against him on the basis of certain charges, by the Superintendent 
of Police, Surguja, on June 24, 1962. After holding the enquir; 
as prescribed by the Central Provinces and Bihar Police Regula-
tions, the Superintendent of Police submitted his report to tl1I! 
Inspector-General of Police, Madhya Pradesh through Deputy 
Inspector-General of Police, Raipur. On the basis of the enquiry 
held by him, the Superintendent of Police concluded that the 
respondent was guilty of the charges levelled against him. 
He 
recommended his dismissal. 
After receiving the report of the 
Superintendent of Police, the Inspector General sent a copy of 
the same to the res

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