1958 (12) TMI 31 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether there is anything in the words of Art. 312 which takes away the usual power of delegation, which ordinarily resides in the legislature? Held that - We cannot read Art. 312 as laying down a mandate prohibiting Parliament from delegating authority to the Central Government to frame rules for the recruitment and the conditions of service of all-India services. We, therefore, reject this contention. Seeing that the rules would govern the all-India services common to the Central Government and the State Government provision was made by s. 3 that rules should be framed only after consulting the State Governments. At the same time Parliament took care to see that these rules were laid on the table of Parliament for fourteen days before they were to come into force and they were subject to modification, whether by way of repeal or amendment on a motion made by Parliament during the session in which they are so laid. This makes it perfectly clear that Parliament has in no way abdicated its authority, but is keeping strict vigilance and control over its delegate. Therefore, reading s. 4 along with s. 3(2) of the Act it cannot be said in the special circumstances of this case that there was excessive delegation to the Central Government by s. 3(1). We are, therefore, of opinion that the Act cannot be struck down on the ground of excessive delegation. In this case the appellant was serving in connection with the affairs of the State of Punjab, and, therefore, the Punjab Government would have authority to institute the enquiry against him. The Central Government would only come into the picture after the enquiry is concluded and if it is decided to impose one of the three punishments mentioned in r. 4(1). This contention must also be rejected. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs to the State of Punjab.

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of the All-India Services Act, 1951.
2. Competence of the provisional Parliament to enact the Act in 1951.
3. Validity of the All-India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955.
4. Delegation of legislative power under Article 312.
5. Excessive delegation under Section 3 of the Act.
6. Authority of the Punjab Government to institute proceedings under the Rules.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of the All-India Services Act, 1951:
The appellant challenged the constitutionality of the Act, arguing that the amendment made by the President in Article 312 of the Constitution by the Constitution (Removal of Difficulties) Order No. II of January 26, 1950, was beyond the President's powers under Article 392. The Court held that Article 392 provided the President with wide powers to make adaptations, including modifications, additions, or omissions, to remove any difficulties during the transition from the Government of India Act, 1935, to the Constitution. The President's adaptation by omission in Article 312 was within his power, and thus, the Act could not be declared unconstitutional on this ground.

2. Competence of the Provisional Parliament to Enact the Act in 1951:
The appellant contended that the provisional Parliament was not competent to enact the Act in 1951 due to the absence of a resolution with the requisite majority as required by Article 312. The Court found that once the President's adaptation in Article 312 was valid, the provisional Parliament had the power to pass the Act without any such resolution.

3. Validity of the All-India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955:
The appellant argued that the Rules promulgated in 1955 were invalid as the omitted words in Article 312 had reappeared, and there was no resolution of the Council of States as required by Article 312. The Court dismissed this argument, stating that the Rules were framed under the valid Act, and the reappearance of the omitted words in Article 312 did not affect the Rules' validity.

4. Delegation of Legislative Power under Article 312:
The appellant contended that Article 312 mandated Parliament to make laws regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of all-India services and could not delegate this function to the Central Government. The Court held that it is well-settled that the legislature can delegate the power to frame rules to carry out the purposes of the law. The numerous and varied rules required for regulating recruitment and conditions of service could not have been intended by the Constitution to be framed solely by Parliament. Thus, delegation under Article 312 was permissible.

5. Excessive Delegation under Section 3 of the Act:
The appellant argued that Section 3 of the Act involved excessive delegation as it did not lay down any legislative policy or standard. The Court found that Section 4 of the Act adopted the existing rules governing the all-India services, thereby laying down the legislative policy and setting a standard. Section 3 allowed the Central Government to frame rules after consulting State Governments, with the rules being subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Therefore, there was no excessive delegation, and the Act could not be struck down on this ground.

6. Authority of the Punjab Government to Institute Proceedings under the Rules:
The appellant contended that the Punjab Government had no authority to institute proceedings under the Rules, as the Central Government should have initiated the enquiry due to the seriousness of the charges. The Court held that it could not be determined at the outset what punishment, if any, would be imposed. Rule 5 indicated that the enquiry would be instituted by the Government under which the officer was serving, and the appellant was serving in connection with the affairs of Punjab. Therefore, the Punjab Government had the authority to institute the enquiry, and the Central Government would come into the picture only after the enquiry if certain penalties were to be imposed. This contention was also rejected.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the Court upheld the constitutionality of the All-India Services Act, 1951, the competence of the provisional Parliament to enact the Act, the validity of the Rules, the permissible delegation of legislative power under Article 312, the non-excessive delegation under Section 3 of the Act, and the authority of the Punjab Government to institute proceedings under the Rules. The Court awarded costs to the State of Punjab.

← Previous Next →