STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. versus Z.U. ANSARI

Citation: [2016] 6 S.C.R. 956 · Decided: 30-09-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
[2016) 6 S.C.R. 956 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
v. 
Z.U. ANSARI 
(Civil Appeal No. 9886of2016) 
SEPTEMBER 30, 2016 
[T.S. THAKUR, CJI AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.] 
Civil Services Regulations, 1975 - Regn. 351-A - Sanction 
under - For initiation of disciplinary proceedings - Granted by the 
Minister-in-charge of the concerned Department, and not by the 
Governor himself - Validity of the sanction - Held: Per T.S. Thakur, 
CJI: The power to direct disciplinary proceedings against an in-
service or retired employee is an executive function to be discharged 
by the State Government - Jn terms of the Business of Uttar Pradesh 
(Allocation) Rules and U.P. Rules of Business, I 975, the said 
function stands allocated to the Ministercin-charge of the concerned 
department - The sanction so made was in law and in the 
constitutional scheme an order passed by the Governor of the State 
within the meaning of regn. 35JA and hence valid in law - Per V. 
Gopala Gowda, J: 1975 Regulations have been framed by the 
E 
·Governor in exercise of legislative power u/Art .. 309 of Constitution 
· - The same is distinct from his executive power under Art. I 66 of 
Constitution whereunder Business Transaction Rules were framed 
- The power under Regn. 351-A of 1975 Regulations can be 
delegated by the Governor , But such delegation cannot be under 
F 
G 
H 
Business Transaction Rules - Jn the absence of any evidence to 
show that the Government had delegated his power to the Minister 
concerned, under Regn. 351-A to accord sanction, the sanction 
granted by the Minister cannot be said to be a valid sanction and 
hence cannot be sustained in law - Per Court: In view of difference 
of opinion, matter to be placed before appropriate Bench - Uttar 
Pradesh Business Transaction Rules, 1975 - Constitution of India 
- Arts, 154, 163, 166 and 309. 
Referring the matter to larger Bench, the Court 
Per T.S. Thakur, CJI. 
HELD: 1. The power to direct a disciplinary enquiry against 
956 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. v. Z.U. ANSARI 
an in-service or retired employee like the respondent is an 
executive function to be discharged by the State Government in 
exercise of the executive power of the State. [Para 16](973-D) 
2. The power to direct an enquiry into any misconduct is 
doubtless an executive function which can be exercised by the 
Government unless there are any limitations imposed by any 
constitutional or statutory provisions which there are none in 
the present case. Thus, the Governor is competent in terms of 
Article 166(3) to allocate such functions to be discharged and 
such powers being exercised by Ministers by framing rules of 
business. That is so especially when the Constitution does not 
require the Governor to exercise the function of sanctioning a 
disciplinary enquiry against a Government servant by himself 
instead of being left to the Minister under the rules that the 
Governor can frame. [Para 9](967-C-E] 
3. The Governor has, framed Business of Uttar Pradesh 
(Allocation) Rules, 1975. Uttar Pradesh Rules of Business, 1975, 
also have been framed by the Governor under Article 166(3) of 
the Constitution. Rule 3 of the said rules empowers the Minister 
in-charge of the department concerned to dispose of the business 
allotted to a department under U.P. (Allocation) Rules, 1975 
except in cases where the rules provide otherwise. Schedules 1 
and 2 to the Rules, set out the subjects on which the matter must 
under the Business Rules go either to the Cabinet or to the Chief 
Minister or to Chief Minister and the Governor. There is, 
however, nothing in the said two schedules that would require 
the grant of sanction to initiate a disciplinary enquiry against a 
serving or retired Government servant to be brought up either 
before the Cabinet, the Chief Minister or the Governor. This 
would mean that sanction for the initiation of disciplinary 
proceedings against a retired Government servant is a niatter 
left to be dealt with by the Minister in charge of the Department 
concerned. [Paras 9, 10 and 12](967-E-F; 968-D-E; 969-C-D] 
4. Neither the Constitution nor the rules framed by the 
Governor under Article 166(3) of the Constitution require matters 
touching grant of sanction in cases like the present to be dealt 
with by the Governor and the Governor alone. The power to 
sanction stands validly conferred on the Minister concerned and 
957 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
958 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
once he takes a dec
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.