UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS versus SRIPATI RANJAN BISWAS AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1976] 1 S.C.R. 268 · Decided: 07-08-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A. ALAGIRISWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

268 
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 
v. 
SRIPATI RANJAN BISWAS AND ANOTHER 
August 7, 1975 
[A. ALAGIRISWAMI, P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.] 
Central Scrrices (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957-r. 23(2 l 
(b)--Appea! to the President of India agail;St an order of disniissal fro111 serricc 
-Di.Hrtisscil of appeal by the Minister-If proper and legal. 
The respondent \Vas dismissed from government service. His appeal to· the 
President against his dismissal was heard by the Minister in the M'..nistry of 
Finance. and was rejected. A single judge of the High Court dismissed his writ 
petition under Art. 226 of the Con.sti.tution but the division bench quashed the 
order of disntlssal, holding that the functions and duties of the President as an 
'lppellate authority under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and 
Appeal) Rules 1957, were not part of the business of the Government of Indi~ 
aor v.rera they part of the President's du&s under the Constitution. It furthe1 
held that tho Minister bad no right to deal with the appeal which bad been pre, 
fi=rrcd to the President of India under the Rules. 
On appeal it was conlended in this Court for the respondent that heariJJg of 
au appeal un<ler a statutory rule is a quasi-judicial act and it could not be 
Jelegatod by the President to tho Minister. 
Allowing the appeal, 
l-lliLD : (a.) There is no constitutional infirmity in th~ impugned order. Dk-
posal of tho appeal by the Minister under r. 23 (2 )(b) of the Rules is a prope1 
and legal disposal of the appeal to tho President who bas acted on the advice 
of tho l\Iinisttr in confirming the impugned order of dismissal. No question of 
J.clegation is involved in such a matter. [272Al 
(b) When the Constitution conclusively contemplates a constitutional President 
it is not permissible nor is ~t even intended to invest upon the President a different 
rolci of a ruling monarch. Any reference to the President under any rule made~ 
under the Comtitution must needs bci to the President as the constitutional head 
as envisaged in the Constitution acting w~th the aid and advice of the Council of 
Ministers. 
[27 lHJ 
In tba present case the question relates to the domain of appointment or dis· 
1nissal of a Government servant. 
Such a question falls within the ambit Of a 
purely executive funct:On of the President in the case of the Union Government 
and of the Governor in the case of a State. Such a funetion being ultimately au 
cxc<:utive function of the President, the fact that final order is preceded or accom-
panied by a quasi-judicial inquiry held by the Minister d!d not affect the charac-
t-::r of tho exercise of that function by the Pre.sident. 
[271A-B] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Sa1nslu:r Sin;;h v. State of Punjab and A11ot'1er, 
A.l.R. 
1974 
S.C. 
2192. 
(; 
followed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURl5DICTION: Civil Appeal No. 556 of 1975. 
' 
_,/ 
I 
Appeal by special leahveCafro
1 
m thHe _iuhdgmCoent. and.A orde1r
1 
dated
0 
~-' 
.._,...,_. 
13tlJ December, 1973 oft e 
cutta 
1g 
urt m ppea rom 
ng1, 
nal Order No. 683 of 1971 (Mandamus Appeal). 
H 
L. N. Sinha, Solicitor General, P. P. Rao and Girish Chandra. fo· 
the appellants. 
• 
A 
B 
-., 
D 
E 
.. 
-,, 
F 
... 
.. 
~-
G 
L 
--/~ 
H 
UNION v. s. R. BISWAs (Goswami, !.) 
26~ 
A. K. Sen and Prodyot Kumar-Chakravarty, for respondent No. 1. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
GusWAMI, J .-This appeal by special leave is directed against the 
judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta of 
December 13, 1973 reversing the judgment of the learned single Judge 
who had earlier found no infirmity in the impugned order of dismissal 
of the first respondent (hereinafter to be described as the respondent). 
The respondent was a confirmed Appraiser with about eleven years• 
service in the Customs Department in Class II of Gazetted Officers. On 
J;iccembcr 4, 1961, he was suspended and a chargesheet was served 
upon him, 
The charges related to firstly taking illegal gratification, 
secondly possession of assests disproportionate to his disclosed income 
and thirdly purchase of a plot of land without sanction of the appropriate 
authodty. The respondent was found guilty in the course of a depart-
mental enquir1y of the second and third charges and was exonerated 
with regard to the first charge. A second notice was served upon him 
on December 17, 1962, affording an opportunity to show cause why 
h~ should not be dismissed firom service.

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