# STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS v. SHARDUL SINGH

- **Citation:** [1970] 3 S.C.R. 302
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969-12-02
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2554 of 1966
- **Bench:** J. C. Shah, K. S. Hegde
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-v-shardul-singh-4916
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art. 311(1)-J/ the Authority e1npowered to
.di.Hniss .'fhou/d itself iuitiate or conduct the enquiry-Article 309, proviso,
---·'Conditions of service", meG-ning of.
The Superintendent of Police jnitiatcd a departmental inquiry against
B
the respondent, who was a Sub-Inspector, with respect to certain charges,
found him guilty, and forwarded the !report to the Inspector-General of
C
Police, who was the authority competent to dismiss him for necessary
action. The Inspector-General sent a copy of the report to 'the respondent,
1.:alled upon him to show cause against the proposed punishment of disn1issal, considered his explanation, and passed an order dismissing him.
The procedure followed was in accordance with Regulations 228 and 229
-of th~ Ce'i1tral Provinces and Bcrar Police Regulations framed under s. 241
of the Government of India Act, 1935, corresponding to Art. 309 of the
Constitution.
D
On the question whether the Regulations were
ultra vires because,
undel' Art. 311, the authority empowered to dismiss
(in this case the
Jnspector~Gcneral) must have himself initiated or conducted the inquiry
preceding the -dismissal, ·
HELD : Under the proviso to Art. 309. power is conferred on the
Prcsi<lcnt of India and the Governor of a State to make rules lregulatitlg
the condition-$ of service of persons appointed to the civil service of the
Union or, the State; as the c~e may be, until provision in thaf behalf is
nlade by, an Act of the appropriate Legislature.
'Conditions of service'
means all those conditions which regulate the holding of a post by a
person Tight from the time of his appointment till his retirement and even
heyond, in matters like pension etc., and includes rules relating to the
disn1issal of an officer. Article 311 ( 1) confers an additional right on the
•:ivil ·servant, namely, that no person holding a civil post shall be dismissed
ur renioved by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appoint-
.. .-d. But for that Article rules could have been framed even in respect to
these matters under Art. 309. Article 311(1) however,
does
not, in
terms, provide that the '\'elevant disciplinary iriquiry ~hould also be initiat1.!<l or conducted by the authority mentioned in the Article. Therefore,
rules could be framed under Art. 309 with respect to condition'S of service
other than those in Art. 311(1) and hence, the Regulations
were not
;i11ra vires the Constitution. [306 B-E]
Pradvat Kunzar Bose v. The Hon'hle the Chief Justice of CG·lcutta
lligh c,;,,,1, [19551 2 S.C.R. 1331 and P. Bal•kotaiah v. Union of India.
[1958/ S.C.R. !052. followed.
E
F
G
;\lorrh w·c.H f"rontier Pro\·inC<' V. Suraj Nar(lin"Anand, (1948) L.R. 75
IA. -143. applied.
H

## Text

302
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
v.
SHARDUL SINGH
December 2, 1969
(J. C. SHAH AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.]
Constitution of India, Art. 311(1)-J/ the Authority e1npowered to
.di.Hniss .'fhou/d itself iuitiate or conduct the enquiry-Article 309, proviso,
---·'Conditions of service", meG-ning of.
The Superintendent of Police jnitiatcd a departmental inquiry against
B
the respondent, who was a Sub-Inspector, with respect to certain charges,
found him guilty, and forwarded the !report to the Inspector-General of
C
Police, who was the authority competent to dismiss him for necessary
action. The Inspector-General sent a copy of the report to 'the respondent,
1.:alled upon him to show cause against the proposed punishment of disn1issal, considered his explanation, and passed an order dismissing him.
The procedure followed was in accordance with Regulations 228 and 229
-of th~ Ce'i1tral Provinces and Bcrar Police Regulations framed under s. 241
of the Government of India Act, 1935, corresponding to Art. 309 of the
Constitution.
D
On the question whether the Regulations were
ultra vires because,
undel' Art. 311, the authority empowered to dismiss
(in this case the
Jnspector~Gcneral) must have himself initiated or conducted the inquiry
preceding the -dismissal, ·
HELD : Under the proviso to Art. 309. power is conferred on the
Prcsi<lcnt of India and the Governor of a State to make rules lregulatitlg
the condition-$ of service of persons appointed to the civil service of the
Union or, the State; as the c~e may be, until provision in thaf behalf is
nlade by, an Act of the appropriate Legislature.
'Conditions of service'
means all those conditions which regulate the holding of a post by a
person Tight from the time of his appointment till his retirement and even
heyond, in matters like pension etc., and includes rules relating to the
disn1issal of an officer. Article 311 ( 1) confers an additional right on the
•:ivil ·servant, namely, that no person holding a civil post shall be dismissed
ur renioved by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appoint-
.. .-d. But for that Article rules could have been framed even in respect to
these matters under Art. 309. Article 311(1) however,
does
not, in
terms, provide that the '\'elevant disciplinary iriquiry ~hould also be initiat1.!<l or conducted by the authority mentioned in the Article. Therefore,
rules could be framed under Art. 309 with respect to condition'S of service
other than those in Art. 311(1) and hence, the Regulations
were not
;i11ra vires the Constitution. [306 B-E]
Pradvat Kunzar Bose v. The Hon'hle the Chief Justice of CG·lcutta
lligh c,;,,,1, [19551 2 S.C.R. 1331 and P. Bal•kotaiah v. Union of India.
[1958/ S.C.R. !052. followed.
E
F
G
;\lorrh w·c.H f"rontier Pro\·inC<' V. Suraj Nar(lin"Anand, (1948) L.R. 75
IA. -143. applied.
H
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2554 of
1966.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
II
M. P. STATE v. SHARDUL SINGH (Hegde, l.)
303
Appeal from the judgment and order dated November 4, 1965
of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 646 of
1964.
I. N. Shroff, for the appellants.
A. K. Sen, M. M. Kshatriya and G. S. Chatterjee, for the
respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hegdc J. Scope of Art. 311(1) of the Constitution comes
up for consideration in this appeal by certificate. The High Court
of Madhya Pradesh has opined that the power of dismissal and
removal referred to in Art. 311 ( 1) implies that the authorities
mentioned in that Article must alone initiate and conduct the disciplinary proceeding culminating in the dismissal or removal of "
delinquent officer.
The respondent herein was a Sub-Inspector of Police in the
State of Madhya Pradesh. A departmental enquiry was initiated
against him on the basis of certain charges, by the Superintendent
of Police, Surguja, on June 24, 1962. After holding the enquir;
as prescribed by the Central Provinces and Bihar Police Regulations, the Superintendent of Police submitted his report to tl1I!
Inspector-General of Police, Madhya Pradesh through Deputy
Inspector-General of Police, Raipur. On the basis of the enquiry
held by him, the Superintendent of Police concluded that the
respondent was guilty of the charges levelled against him.
He
recommended his dismissal.
After receiving the report of the
Superintendent of Police, the Inspector General sent a copy of
the same to the respondent and called upon him to show cause
why...he should not be dismissed from service.
The respond~nt
submitted his explanation.
After considering
the same,
the
Inspector General of Police dismissed the respondent from service
on November 30, 1963. The respondent's appeal to the Government against the order dismissing him was rejected.
Thereafter
the respondent moved the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution to quash the order dismissing him by issuing a writ of
l'ertiorari. The dismissal order was challenged on various grounds.
The High Court rejected all but one of them.
It came to the
conclusion that the Superintendent of Police,
Surguja was not
competent to initiate or conduct the enquiry held against the respondent as he had been appointed by the Inspector-General of
Police. It was of the view that the enquiry in the case was without the authority of Jaw and against the mandate of Art. 311 (1).
It accordingly allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned
order. · The Superintendent of Police, Surguja initiated arid co11ducted the enquiry against the respondent on the basis of Regulations 228 and 229 of the Central Provinces and Bihar Polic.e Rcgu-
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
( 1970) 3 S.C.R.
lations.
These Regulations are evidently framed on the basis of
s. 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935,,a provision which
permitted the· State Governments to make rules regulating the
recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to
State service.
Regulation 228 says :
"In every case of dismissal, reduction in rank, grade
or pay, or withholding of increment for a period in
excess of one year, a· formal proceeding must be recorded, by the District ·Superintendent in the
prescribed
form, setting forth :-
(a) the charge;
(b) the evidence on which the charge is based;
( c) the defence of the accused;
(d) the statements of his witnesses (if any) ..
( e) the finding of the District Superintendent, with
the reasons on which it is based;
.
'
(f) the District Superintendent's final order or recommendation, as the case may be."
Regulation 229 prescribes that in cases where the District
Superintendent is not empowered to pass a final order, he should
forward ,his proposals for the dismissal.. removal or compulsory
retirement of an officer of and above the rank of Sub-Inspector
to the proper authority through the District Magistrate, except
in cases where an officer is not serving in a district. ·
There is no dispute that the Superintendent of Police had complied with the requirements of Regs. 228 and 229. The question
for consideration is whether the power conferred on the Superintendent of Police under Regs. 228 and 229 is ultra vires Art.
311(1).
. Art. 31 1 ( l) provides that no person who is a member of
Civil Service of the Union or of an All India Service or Civil
Service of a State or holds civil post under the Union or State
shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that
by which he was appointed. This Article does not in terms require
that the authority empowered under that provision to dismiss or
remove an official, should itself initiate or conduct the enquiry
preceding the dismissal or removal of the officer or even that
that enquiry should be done at its instance. The only
right
guaranteed to a civil servant under that provision is !hat he shall
not be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that
by which he was appointed. But it is said on behalf of the respondent that that guarantee includes within itself the guarantee that
the relevant 'disciplinary enquiry should be initiated and conA
8
c
D
E
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
M. P. STATE i·. SHARDUL SINGH ( Hegde, J.)
ducted by the authorities mentioned in the Article. The High Court
has accepted this contention.
We have now to see whether the
view taken by the High Court is correct.
Art. 310(1) of the Constitution declares that every peNm
who is a member of civil service of a State or holds any civil Jll)'t
in a State holds office during the pleasure of the Governor of a
State.
But the pleasure doctrine embodied therein is subjec·t to
the other provisions in the Constitution. Two other Articles in ihe
Constitution which cut down the width of the pow_er given unc!cr
Art. 310( I) are Arts. 309 an<l 311.
Art. 309 provides that
subject to the provisions of the Constitution, Acts of the appropriate Legisi'!tture may regulate the recruitment. and conditions
of service of persons appoimed, to public services and posts in
connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State. Provi:;o
to that Article says :
"Provided that it shall be competent for the President
or such person as he may direct in the case of services
and posts in conection with the affairs of the Union,
and for the Governor of a State or such person as he
may direct in the case of services and po>ts in connection with the affairs of the State to make rules regulating the recruitment. and the conditions. of service of
persons appointed, to such services and posts until provision in that behalf is made by or under an Act of the
appropriate Legislature under this article, and any rules
so made shall have effect subject to the provisions of
any such Act."
One of the powers conferred undir this proviso is to make
rules regulating the conditions of service of persons appointed to
civil services of the Union or the State as the case may be. The
expression "conditi.ons of service" is an expression of wide import.
As pointed by this Court in Pradyat Kumar Bose v. The Hon'ble
the Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court ('), the dismissal of an
official is a matter :which falls within "conditions of service" of
public servants. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in
North West Frontier Province v. Suraj Narain Anand (2), took
the view that a right of dismissal is a condition of service within
the' meaning of the words under s. 243 of the Government of
llidia Act, 1935.
Lord Thankerton speaking for the Board observed therein :
"apart from consideration whether the context indicates a special significance to the expression 'conditions
of service' their Lordshios are unable irt the absence
of any such special significance, to regard provisions
(!) [t955] 2 S.C.R. 1331.
(2) [1948] L.R. 75 I.A. 343.
306
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970) 3 S.C.R.
which prescribe the circumstances under which
the
employer is to be entitled to terminate the service as
otherwise than conditions of the service, whether these
provisions are contractual or statutory; they are therefore of opinion that the natural meaning of the expression would include such provisions."
In P. Balakotaiah v. The Union of lr.dia and Ors.(') this Court
proceeded on the basis that a rule providing for the termination of
the s·~rvicc of a railway official can be made in exercise of the
powers conferred on the Government by ss. 241 (2), 247 and
263(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935.
The expression 'conditions of service' means all those conditions which regulate the holding of a post by a person right from
the time of his appointment till his retirement and even beyond it
in matters like pension etc ..
But for the incorporation of Art. 311 in the Constitution even
in r~spect of matters· provided therein, rules could have been
framed under Art. 309. The provisions in Art. 311 confer additional rights 011' the civil servants. Hence we are unable to agree
with the High Court that the guarantee given under Art. 311 ( 1)
includes within itself a furth~r guarantee that th.e disciplinary
proceedings resulting in dismissal or removal of a civil servant
;hould also be initiated and conducted by the authorities mentioned
in that Article.
In the result this appeal is allowed, the judgment of the High
Court is set aside and the writ petition dismissed .. In the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs.
Y. P.
Appeal allowed.
( l) [19581 S.C.R. 1052.
A
ll
c
D
F.