SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SADAR, FAIZABAD versus SHAMBHOO NARAIN SINGH

Citation: [1970] 1 S.C.R. 151 · Decided: 31-03-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SUB·DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SADAR, FAIZABAD 
'B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
v. 
SHAMBHOO NARAIN SINGH 
March 31, 1969 
[S. M. SIKRI, R. S. BACHAWAT AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.] 
U.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1947, s. 95(i)(g)-Pradhan of Gaon Sabha-
Suspension, pending enquiry, power-Up~pradhan to officiate as Pradhan 
during suspension--IJ can be ordered-Pradhan·~ relationship lvith Gov-
ernmena. 
The respondent was elected as Pradhan of a Goan Sabha in 
Uttar 
Pradesh. 
The appellant-government by an order suspended the respon-
dent, and pending enquiry, directed the respondent to give charge to the 
up..pradhan. The respondent filed a writ petition ·in the High Court chlJ. 
lengin11 the order. The High Court dismissed the petition but in appeal, 
the High Court quashed the order holding that s. 95(i) (g) of the U.P. 
Panchayat Raj Act. 1947 did not empower the Government lo p ... the 
impuped order. In appeal by special leave, 
this 
Court affirmin1 the 
decision of the appellate bench of the High Court, 
HELD : Where an Act confers a jurisdiction it impliedly also arants 
the power of doing all such acts, or employing such means as are eaential. 
ly necenary to its execution. But before implying the existence of such a 
power the court must be satislied that the existence of that power is abso-
lutely essentfal for the discharge of the power conferred and not merely 
that it is convenient to have such a power. The power to place Wider 
suspension an officer is not absolutely essential for the proper exercise of 
the power conferred under s. 95 (i) (g). It cannot be said that the power 
in question cannot be properly exercised without the, power to su!Pend 
pending enquiry. The mere possibility of interference with the course of en-
quiry or of further misuse of powers are not sufficient to enlarge the 
scope of a statutory power. If it is otherwise, the mere power to punish 
an offender woulct have been held sufficient to arrest and detain him pend· 
ing enquiry and trial There would have been no ne<d to confer specific 
power to arrest and detain persons charged with offences before 
their 
conviction. Further no provision either in the Act or in the rules framed 
thereunder has been shown under which the Government 
could have 
directed the up-Pradhan to officiate as Pradhan during the suspension of 
the respondent. If the order could not have been made, as it could not 
be made, then the question arises as tQ who could discharge the functions 
or Pra~han when he is placed under suspension pending enquif'y of the 
charges levelled against him. 
Absence of a provision providing for such 
a contingency is !l clear indication of the absence of the power contended 
for. (154 F-155 DJ 
Babu Nandan v. Sub Divisional Officer Sclempur, A.LR. 1966 All, 
1958, approved. 
A Pradhan cannot be considered as a servant of Government. 
HC is 
an elected representative. 
There is no contractual relationship between 
him and the Government much less the relationship of master and servant 
(154 A-BJ 
H 
Management of Hotel Imperial, New Delhi v. Hotel Workers' Union, 
[1960] I S.C.R. 476; T. Caiee v. U. !ormanik Siem, [19611 1 S.C.R. 750; 
R. P,, KGpur v. Union of India [1964] 5 S.C.R. 431 and Ba/want Rai Rati-
lal Paul v. State of Maharashtra, [1968] 2 S.C.R. 577, held inapplicable. 
152 
SUPREME COUllT REPORTS 
[1970] I s.c.R. 
The Goan Sabha is the creature of a statute. Its powers and dutiea 
A 
as well as the powers and duties of its officers arc all regulated by the Act. 
Hence no question of any inherent power arises for consideration.. 
Smt. Wra Devi cl Ors. v. Diltrlct Boord, Shahjalumpur, [1952) S.C.R. 
1122, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appe11l No. 721 of 
1966. 
. 
B 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
December 9, 1964 of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench 
in Special Appeal No. 93 of 1963. 
C. B. Agarwala 3111d O. P. Rana, Cor the appellant. 
S. C. Agarwal, R: K. Garg, D. P. Singh and S. Chakravarty, 
for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hedge J. Io this appeal by special leave, the scope of a. 95 
( 1 )(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (to be hereinafter 
nierrcd to as the Act) arises for decision. 
The facts material for the purpose of deciding this appeal are 
these : The respondent was the elected Pradhan of the Gaoo 
Sabha of Asapur District Faizabad. The Sub-Divisional Officer, 
Sadar, 
Faizabad placed him under suspension 
as per his 
Jrder of September 

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