# 6 S.C.R. 956 STATE OF U.P. AND ORS v. Z.U. ANSARI - **Citation:** [2016] 6 S.C.R. 956 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2016-09-30 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 9886of2016 - **Bench:** T.S. Thakur, V. Gopala Gowda - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/6-s-c-r-956-state-of-u-p-and-ors-v-z-u-ansari-31578 - **Pages:** 30 ## Headnote 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 inservice 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 sanctio ## Text _Characters 0–39,686 of 62,360. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39686 for what follows._ 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 inservice 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 decision on the subject, it is in law and in the constitutional scheme deemed to be a decision or action taken by the Governor for all intended purposes including for the purpose of Regulation 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations, 1975. (Para 12)(969-E-F] B c D E F G H 5. In the present case, the Minister not only had the power to sanction the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, but, he had in fact exercised that power. The order so issued was conveyed by the Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh but even when the communication/order was not expressed in the name of the Governor the same was entitled to the immunity postulated under Article 166(2) of the Constitution. The order so made was in law and in the constitutional scheme an order passed by the Governor of the State within the meaning of Regulations 351-A of the Regulations and was, therefore, valid in the eye of law. [Para 16][973-F; 974-A-B] PU My/lai Hlychho and Ors. v. State of Mizoram and Ors. (2005) 2 SCC 92 : 2005 (1) SCR279 - followed. Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab and Am: (1974) 2 SCC 831 : 1975 (1) SCR 814; State of MP. v. Dr. Yashwant Trimbak (1996) 2 SCC 305 : 1995 (6) Suppl. SCR 128 - relied on. State of Bihar v. Rani Sonabati Kumar 1961 (1) SCR 728; Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Bir/a Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills 1968 (3) SCR 251 - referred to. Per V. Gopala Gowda, J. _(Dissenting) HELD: 1. Article 309 of the Constitution provides for the regulation of recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State. Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations, 1975 has been framed in exercise of power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It is a settled position of law that while exercising power under Article 309 of the Constitution, the Governor acts in a legislative capacity and not executive capacity. [Paras 10 and 11][976-G; 977-D-E) B.S Yadav 'v. State of Haryana (1980) Supp. SCC 524 : 1981 SCR 102 - relied on. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. v. Z.U. ANSARI 2. Article 154 of the Constitution provides for the executive power of the State to be vested in the Governor. It is also a well settled principle of law that the Governor exercises executive power under. Article 166 of the Constitution. Article 166 of the Constitution thus, confers the power on the Governor to make rules for the convenient transaction of business of the Government of the State and for the allocation among its Ministers of the said business. [Paras 7, 8 and 9][975-B-C, G-H; 976-A] State of Gujarat v. R.A. Mehta (2013) 3 SCC 1 : 2005 (1) SCR 279 - relied on. 3. The powers under Articles 166(3) and 309 of the Constitution operate in completely different fields. It would thus, be absurd if the Rules made in exercise of power under Article 166 of the Constitution, are used as a benchmark while exercising power under Article 309 of the Constitution. In the instant case, the Uttar Pradesh Business Transaction Rules, 1975, confer power on a minister in charge to exercise power in the name of Governor. The same however, cannot be used to justify the action of the minister when the exercise of power under the regulations framed under Article 309 of the Constitution is under scrutiny. [Para 13] [979-C-D] Sampat Prakash v. State of Jammu and Kashmir AIR 1970 SC 1118 : 1970 SCR 365 - followed. 4. Sanction of the Governor is required before initiation of proceedings against a retired employee in terms of Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations, 1975. Undoubtedly, the said power under Regulation 351-A can be delegated by the Governor. However, the delegation accorded under the Business Transaction Rules, 1975, in respect of the power conferred under Article 166 of the Constitution, cannot be used as a substitute in the present case. [Para 14][980-F-G] State of U.P. v. Harihar Bho/e Nath (2006) 13 SCC 460 : 2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 241; State of U.P. •: Krishna Pandey (1996) 9 SCC 395 : 1996 (3) SCR 183 - referred to. 5. Thus, while the fact that the powers may be delegated is 959 A B c D E F G H 960 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 6 S.C.R. not in dispute, what is essential to establish is that the delegation has infact taken place. Further, it is also essential to establish that what has been delegated is the relevant power under the relevant rule for the purpose. Delegation of power for one purpose cannot be understood to mean a delegation of power for all other purposes as well. The question in the present case is the statutory exercise of power under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. [Paras 16 and 17][9S3-G-H; 9S4-A; 9S5-C-D] State of MP. v. Yashwant Trimbak (1996) 2 SCC 305 : 1995 (6) Suppl. SCR 12S;Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC S31 : 1975 (1) SCR S14; State of Bihar v. Rani Sonabati Kumar AIR 1961 SC 221 : 1961 SCR 72S; Godavari Shamrao Parulekar v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1964 SC 112S : 1964 SCR 446 - distinguished. 6. In the absence of any evidence on record to show that the Governor had delegated his power to the concerned Minister under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations, 1975 to accord sanction, the sanction granted by the Minister in charge cannot be said to be a valid sanction and cannot be sustained in law. (Para 1S][9S5-D-E] Case Law Reference In the Judgment of T.S. Thakur, CJI.: 1975 (1) SCR S14 relied on 1995 (6) Suppl. SCR 12S relied on 1961 (1) SCR 72S referred to 196S (3) SCR 251 referred to 2005 (1) SCR279 followed In the Judgment of V. Gopala Gowda, J. 2005 (1) SCR 279 19Sl SCR 102 relied on relied on Paras Para 13 Para 13 Para 13 Para 15 Paras Para 11 STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. v. Z.U. ANSARI 961 1970 SCR 365 followed Para 12 A 2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 241 referred to Para 14 1996 (3) SCR 183 referred to Para 14 1995 (6) Suppl. SCR 128 distinguished Para 14 1975 (1) SCR 814 distinguished Para 15 B 1961 SCR 728 distin~uished Para 16 1964 SCR 446 distin~uished Para 17 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9886 C of2016. From the Judgment and Order dated 03.02.2014 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19485 of 2012: Gaurav Bhatia, AAG., Pawanshree Agrawal, Abhishek Chaudhary, Ad vs., with him for the Appellants. Subramonium Prasad, Sr. Adv., Abhishekh Swaroop, Utkarsh Srivastava, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Advs., with him for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. THAKUR, CJI. I. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 3rd February, 2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad whereby Writ Petition No.19485 of 2012 filed by the respondent has D E been allowed and disciplinary proceedings based on charge-sheet dated F 26'h June, 2011 issued to the respondent quashed with the direction that the writ petitioner-respondent herein shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. 3. The respondent-writ petitioner before the High Court joined the Saharanpur Division of Rural Engineering Department of the State G ofUttar Pradesh as a Junior Engineer on 26•h February, 1973. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on 25'h April, 1981 and transferred to Pratapgarh Division, and thereafter to several other places till he superannuated from service on 30'h September, 2008. H 962 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 6 S.C.R. 4. Financial irregularities allegedly causing a pecuniary loss to the tune of Rs.13,23,964/- to the State exchequer, having been noticed, a proposal for initiating disciplinary proceedings was mooted by the Rural Engineering Department and sanctioned by the Minister in-charge of Rural Engineering Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh on 71h January, 2011. A charge-sheet dated 27'h June, 2011 was accordingly issued to the respondent and Chief Engineer (WB) was nominated as Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry into the charges. Aggrieved, the respondent filed Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.19485 of 2012 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The principal contention urged in support of that Writ Petition was that in the absence of a valid sanction from the Governor under35 I-A of the Civil Services Regulations, 1975 fran1ed under Article 309 of the Constitution oflndia, the disciplinary action proposed against the respondent was legally impermissible. That contention found favour with a Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad, who, as noticed earlier, has allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the disciplinary proceedings including the charge-sheet served upon the respondent. The High Court has taken the view that Article 166 of the Constitution oflndia relied upon by the State in support of the sanction issued by the Minister in-charge of Department of Rural Engineering, Government of Uttar Pradesh, and Article 309 of the Constitution oflndia operate in distinctly different fields. The High Court declared that if Service Regulations framed under Article 309 of the Constitution oflndia require sanction of the Governor before initiating the departmental proceedings against a retired employee any such sanction must be granted by the Governor himself and not by the Minister incharge of the department concerned. The High Court observed that in terms of U.P. Rules of Business, 1975 only such business can be dealt with by the Minister as is allocated to him under the said Rules. There was, according to the High Court, nothing to suggest that the power to sanction disciplinary proceedings against a retired government servant had been allocated to the Minister to be disposed of by general or special directions of the Minister. The sanction granted by the Minister for initiating departmental proceedings against the respondent was, in that view, held to be insufficient to maintain such proceedings. The sum total of the reasoning given by the High Court is contained in the following passage extracted from the impugned judgment: "We are of the considered opinion that the provisions STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. v. Z.U. ANSARI [T. S. THAKUR, CJI] of Article 309 of the Constitution of India operate in a separate field vis-a-vis the conduct of government business under Article 166 of the Constitution of India. They are not overlapping. Therefore, if under the service rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India namely the Civil Services Regulations, 1975, it has be.en provided that sanction of the Governor would be necessary before initiation of the departmental proceedings with the service of the charge-sheet upon the retired employee then such sanction has to be that of the Governor and not of the minister with reference to the UP Secretariat Instructions 1982 framed under the Rules of Business, 1975. We may also record that the UP Secretariat Instructions 1982, Chapter VII only provide that all business a/located to a department under the Rules of Business, 1975 is to be disposed of by or under the General or special directions of the minister in-charge (Reference Business Regulations 3). It is, therefore, clear that only such business as allocated to the department under the Rules of Business, 1975 can be disposed of under the general or special directions of the minister in-charge. Nothing has been defl!Onstrated before us to lead us to accept that the power to sanction the departmental proceedings in respect of a retired government servant has been allocated as a business to be disposed of under the general or special directions of the minister concerned under the Business Regulations. We have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that the sanction of the minister referable to the Bus-iness Regulations in the facts of the case will not amount to the sanction of the Governor as contemplated by Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations, 1975." . 5. The present appeal, as noticed earlier, assails the correctness of the view taken by the High Court. The legal position on the subject is, in my opinion, fairly settled by the decisions of this Court to which I shall presently refer, but, before I do so I may gainfully extract Regulation 963 A c D E F G H 964 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 6 S.C.R. A 351 A of the Civil Service Regulations, 1975 which reads as under: "351-A. The Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part ofit. whether permanently or for a specified period and the B c D E F right of ordering the recovery (rom the pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave misconduct, or to have caused. Pecuniary loss to government by misconduct or Negligence, during his service, including service rendered on re-employment after retirement: Provided that- (a) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment- ' (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor, {ii)shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings, and (iii)shal/ be conducted by such authority an'd in such place or places as the Governor may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to proceedings on which an order of dismissal from service may be made... . .. " 6. I may at this stage also refer to Article 163 of the Constitution oflndia, which, i11ter alia, postulates that the Governor is bound to act on the aid and advise of Council of Ministers except in so far as he is by G or under the Constitution required to exercise his functions or any of H them in his discretion: ''163. Council of Ministers to aid and advise Governor (1) There shall be a council of Ministers with the chief Minister at the head to aid and advise the Governor in STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. v. Z.U. ANSARI 965 [T. S. THAKUR, CJI] the exercise of his .functions, except in so far as he is by A or under this constitution required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion (2) If any question arises whether any matter is or is not a matter as respects which the Governor is by or under this Constitution required to act in his discretion, B the decision of the Governor in his discretion shall be final, and the validity of anything done by the Governor shall not be called in question on the ground that he ought or ought not to have acted in his discretion (3) The question whether any, and if so what, advice c was tendered by Ministers to the Governor shall not be inquired into in any court" 7. Reference may also be made to Article 166 of the Constitution of India which deals with conduct of Government business and inter alia provides that all executive action of the State shall be expressed to D be taken in the name of Governor. It reads: "166. Conduct of business of tile Government of a State (1) All executive action of the Government of a State shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the ~~& E (2) Orders and otb_er instruments made and executed in the name of the Governor shall be authenticated in such manner as may be specified in rules to be made by the Governor, and the validity of an order on instruction which is so authenticated shall not be called in question F on the ground that it is not an order or instrument made or executed by the Governor (3) The Governor shall make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Government of the State, and for the a/location among Cl Ministers of the said business in so far as it is not business with respect to which the Governor is by or under this Constitution required to act in his discretion" 8. One of the earliest decisions of this Court that interpreted Article H 966 A B c D E F G SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 6 S.C.R. 163(1) was delivered in Sltamslter Singlt v. State of Punjab and Anr. (1974) 2 SCC 831. This Court in that case recognised two broad principles while interpreting Article 163 (supra). Firstly, this Court declared that except functions required by the Constitution to be exercised by the Governor in his discretion the Governor acts on the aid and advice of Council of Ministers. Secondly, this Court declared that the functions vested in the Governor whether executive, legislative or quasi-judicial in nature and whether vested by the Constitution or by statute can be delegated under the Rules of Business unless a contrary intention is clearly discernible from any constitutional or statutory provision. This Court observed: "48. The President as well as the Governor is the constitutional or formal head The President as well as the Governor exercises his powers and (unctions conferred on him by or under the Constitution on the aid and advice of his Council of Ministers. save in spheres where the Governor is required by or under the Constitution to exercise his functions in his discretion. Wherever the Constitution requires the satisfaction of the President or the Governor for the exercise by the President or the Governor of any power or function. the satisfaction required by the Constitution is not the personal satisfaction Q( the President or Governor but the satisfaction of the President or Governor in the constitutional sense in the Cabinet system of Governnient. that is. satisfaction of his Council of Ministers on whose aid and advice the President or the Governor generally exercises all his powers and functions. The decision of any Minister or officer under Rules of Business made under any of these two Articles 77(3) and 166(3/ is the decision of the President or the Governor respectively. These articles did not provide for any delegation. Therefore, the decision of a Minister or officer under the Rules of Business is the decision of the President or the Governor. " xxx xxx xxx 57. For the foregoing reasons we hold that the President H or the Governor acts on the aid and advice of the STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. v. Z.U. ANSARI [T. S. THAKUR, CJI] Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head in the case of the Union and the Chief Minister at the head in the case of State in all matters which vests in the Executive whether those functions are executive or legislative in character. Neither the President nor the Governor is to exercise the executive functions personally. . . . . . . . .. " (emphasis supplied) 9. The question then is whether the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a Government servant whether in service or retired is an executive function for the Government to exercise. My answer is in the affirmative. 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 case at hand. If that be so as it indeed is, 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. The Governor has, in the case at hand, framed Business ofUttar Pradesh (Allocation) Rules, 1975. Rule 2 of the said Rules reads: "2(1) The business of the Government shall be transacted in the sections or departments of the Uttar Pradesh Secretariat as may be specified by general or special orders of Governor, issued from time to time, in that behalf. Provided that until further orders, the orders relating to allocation in force immediately before the commencement of these rules; shall continue in force. (2) In addition to the subjects specifically a/located or deemed to be allocated to them under sub-rule (1), all Sections or departments of the Uttar Pradesh Secretariat 967 A B c D E F G H 968 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 6 S.C.R. shall have powers to issue orders under any of the following lmvs, in so far as the subject is allocated to them and subject to general directions of the Chief Secretary. (a) The defence of India Act and rules for the time being ' inforce; (b) Any law for the time being in force for the maintenance of essential services or essential supplies. (c) The Essei1tial Commodities Act for the time being in force; (d) Any lmv relating to land acquisition for the time being in force; (e) Sanction for prosecution for any offence relating to the subject allocated to the Section or department. " I 0. Reference may also be made now to Uttar Pradesh Rules of Business, 1975, 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. Rule 3 reads: "Disposal of Business: Subject to the provisions of these rules in regard to consultation with other departments and submission of cases of the Chief Minister, cabinet an_d the Governor, all business allotted, to a department under the business of U.P. (Allocation) Rules, 1975. shall be disposed of by or under the general or special direction of the Minister-in-charge". 1 I. Rules 7 and 8 of the Business Rules which provide for submission of cases to the Cabinet or the Chief Minister or the Governor or the Chief Minister and the Governor are relevant for the purpose and may be extracted: "7. Submission of cases to tlie Cabi11et -All cases specified in the First Schedule to these rules shall be brought before the Cabinet: STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. v. Z.U. ANSARI 969 [T. S. THAKUR, CJI] Provided that no case which concerns more than one A department shall, save in cases of urgency be brought before the Cabinet umil all the departments concerned have been consulted. 8. Submission of cases of tile Cllief Minister and tile Governor - All cases of the nature specified in the B Second Schedule to these rules shall, before the issue of orders thereon, be submitted to the Chief Minister or to the Governor or the Chief Minister and the Governor as indicated therein." 12. Schedules I and 2 referred to in the above rules set out the C 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 matter left to be dealt with by the Minister in charge of the Department concerned. Suffice it to say that neither the Constitution nor the rules framed by the Governor under Article 166(3) 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 once he takes a decision on the subject, it is in law and in the constitutional scheme deemed to be a decision or action taken by the Governor for all intended purposes including for the purpose of Regulation 351 (A) of the Civil Service Regulations, 197 5. 13. In State of M.P. v. Dr. Yllsl1want Trimbllk (1996) 2 SCC 305, this Court was dealing with a case where disciplinary proceedings were started against a retired Director of Institute of Animal Health and Veterinary Biological Products, before initiating the proceedings the sanction of the Council of Ministers was obtained under the M.P. Civil Service Pensions Rules, 1976. The sanction order purported to be in the name of the Governor which was conveyed under the signature of the Under Secretary to Government of Madhya Pradesh. The State Administrative Tribunal, however, quashed the departmental enquiry for want ofa valid sanction under the Rules aforementioned. Relying upon D E F G H \, 970 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 6 S.C.R. the decisions of this Court in State of Biliar v. Rani Sonahati Kumar 1961 (1) SCR 728, and Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Birl