9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order of the Revenue Minister of PEPSU. 2. Competence of the Chief Minister of Punjab to review and set aside the order. 3. Nature of departmental proceedings against a government servant. 4. Communication and formalization of government orders. 5. Jurisdiction and authority under the Rules of Business of the Government of PEPSU and Punjab. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the order of the Revenue Minister of PEPSU: The appellant was dismissed by the Revenue Secretary of PEPSU for tampering with official records. The appellant claimed that the Revenue Minister of PEPSU reduced the punishment from dismissal to reversion, which was orally communicated to him. However, this was denied by the State, and it was common ground that the remarks were never officially communicated. The Supreme Court emphasized that for an order to be valid, it must be formally expressed in the name of the Governor and communicated officially. The Court held that merely writing something on the file does not amount to an order of the State Government. Until a formal order is drawn up and communicated, the State Government is not bound by what is stated in the file. 2. Competence of the Chief Minister of Punjab to review and set aside the order: The appellant argued that the Chief Minister of Punjab had no jurisdiction to review the order of the Revenue Minister of PEPSU. The Supreme Court referred to Rule 28(1) of the Punjab Rules of Business, which allows the Chief Minister to call for files and make orders in cases raising questions of policy or administrative importance. The Court found that the Chief Minister was within his rights to pass the order, as it involved a question of policy regarding the punishment of an official found guilty of grave charges. The order passed by the Chief Minister is deemed to be an order of the Council of Ministers and thus valid. 3. Nature of departmental proceedings against a government servant: The High Court had divided the departmental proceedings into two parts: the enquiry (judicial) and the action to be taken (administrative). The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that departmental proceedings are continuous and involve two stages: establishing charges and deciding on the punishment. Both stages are judicial in nature, requiring notice and an opportunity to be heard under Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Consequently, any action taken against a government servant found guilty of misconduct is a judicial order and cannot be varied at the will of the authority. 4. Communication and formalization of government orders: The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of formalizing and communicating government orders. Under Article 166 of the Constitution, all executive actions must be expressed in the name of the Governor and communicated to the affected person. Until such communication, the order is provisional and not binding. The Court cited the case of State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh to illustrate that a decision must be communicated to be effective and binding. 5. Jurisdiction and authority under the Rules of Business of the Government of PEPSU and Punjab: The appellant argued that his appeal should have been decided by the Revenue Minister of Punjab and not the Chief Minister. The Supreme Court referred to Rule 18 of the Punjab Rules of Business, which allows the Minister-in-charge to dispose of cases but also permits the Chief Minister to call for files under Rule 28(1). The Court found that the Chief Minister acted within his authority as the matter raised a question of policy. Additionally, Rule 4 of the Punjab Rules of Business states that the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible for all executive orders, making the Chief Minister's order valid. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the remarks of the Revenue Minister of PEPSU were not a valid order as they were not formally communicated. The Chief Minister of Punjab acted within his authority to review and set aside the order. The Court emphasized the judicial nature of departmental proceedings and the necessity of formalizing and communicating government orders. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, considering the appellant's circumstances.
|
