STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. versus CHANDRAPAL SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 1062 · Decided: 12-03-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 
v. 
--._;,.. 
CHANDRAPAL SINGH AND ANR. 
MARCH 12, 2003 
B 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARJJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Service law: 
c 
Dismissal from service-Assistant Agricultural lnspeclor-Dis~iplinary 
proceedings against for irregularities and misconduct-Accepting inquiry 
report, disciplinary authority dismissed the delinquent from service-Order 
challenged before Service Tribunal on the ground that disciplinmy proceedings 
were initiated by an officer lower in rank than that of the dis,:;iplinary authority 
therefore, the disciplina1y proceedings initiated and i_ts further culmination in 
D order of dismissal were all vitiated-Claim allowed by Tribunal and affirmed 
by High Court-Held. looking to the terms and contents of Article 31 I of the 
Constitution, it does not follow that even initiation or conduct of inquiry 
proceedings should be by that authority itself which is empowered to dismiss 
or remove an official under the said Article, unless there is an express rule 
E 
governing the official requiring it to be so-On facts, at the time of appointment, 
disciplinary proceedings and order of dismissal, the authority initiating the 
disciplinwy proceedings was itself disciplinary authority-Judgment of High 
Court set aside-Order of dismissal restored-Disciplinmy Proceedings-
Authority competent to initiate-Constitution of India-Article 31 l(d). 
F 
State of MP. and Ors. v. Shardul Singh, (1970( I SCC 108; P.V. 
Srinivas and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 11993] I SCC 419 and Registrar 
of Co-operative Societies v. Fernando; (1994] 2 SCC 746, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION; Civil Appeal No. 1295 of 1998. 
-
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.7.1995 of the Allahabad High 
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 14226 of 1981. 
R.C. Verma, Mukesh Verma and Manish Shanker for the Appellants. 
Rajeev Sharma, Tara Chandra Sharma and Ajay Sharma, for the 
H Respondents. 
1062 
-
STA TE v. CHAND RAP AL SINGH 
1063 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The State of U .P. and another are before us in this appeal, assailing the 
order passed by the High Court in a writ petition affirming the order passed 
by the U.P. Public Service Tribunal No. III, Lucknow. The respondent No. 
A 
1 herein was appointed as Assistant Agriculture Inspector, Group-III by the 
Director of Agriculture. On account of certain irregularity or misconduct the B 
disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by the District Agriculture 
Officer. After holing enquiry, he submitted a report to the disciplinary authority 
which authority, accepting the report of the District Agriculture Officer, passed 
the order of dismissal dated 11.4.1977 dismissing the respondent no. I from 
service. Challenging the said order of dismissal, the respondent No. I filed C 
a claim petition before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal. Before the said 
Tribunal, a contention wits raised that respondent No. I having been appointed 
by the Director of Agriculture, the District Agriculture Officer could not have 
initiated the disciplinary proceedings. Consequently, the disciplinary 
proceedings initiated and further proceedings taken, culminating into an order 
of dismissal, were all vitiated. The Tribunal accepted this contention, observing D 
that subsequent delegation of power or making the District Agriculture Officer 
an appointing authority in relation to Group III posts, to which respondent 
No. 1 belonged at the relevant point of .time, would not cure the defect, 
namely, initiation of disciplinary proceedings by the District Agriculture 
Officer while the Director of Agriculture having been the appointing authority. E 
Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the State filed writ petition 
before the High Court. The High Court agreeing with the findings recorded 
by the Tribunal, dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal. 
The learned counsel for the appellants contended that respondent No. 
1 was appointed as Assistant Agriculture Inspector on 24.6.1966; disciplinary p 
proceedings were initiated against him by the District Agriculture Officer on 
10.1.1974 and the order of dismissed came to be passed on 11.4.1977. He 
pointed out two G.Os. dated 15.6.1961and26.12.1983 to show that on those 
dates the District Agriculture Officer was the appointing authority by virtue 
of the powers conferred on them by all the relevant G.Os. which had the 
assent of the Governor. On the basis of these G.Os., the learned counsel G 
contend

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