State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jogendra Singh

GAJENDRAGADKAR J .-The short point of law which arises in this appeal relates to the construction of Rule 4 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947 (hereinafter called the Rules). That question arises in this way. The respondent Jogcndra Singh was appointed a Naib Tchsildar under the appellant, the State of U. P. in the year l!l37. O.n August 4, 1952, he was suspended as complaints had been received against him and an enquiry into the said complaints was contemplated. Accordingly, charges were framed against him am! his case was referred for investigation to the Administrative Tribunal appoin­ ted under the Rules. The Tribunal held an enquiry and exonerated the respondent from the charges framed against him, in August 1953. While the proceedings before the Tribunal were pending, additional complaints were received by the 2 s.a.R.. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 199 appellant against the respondent's conduct, and they were communicated by the appellant to the Tribunal with ~n intimation that the appellant proµosed to send those further charges against the respondent for enquiry. The Tribunal did not wait for receipt of the said additional charges because it was asked by the government to proceed with the charge already with it and concluded its enquiry. That is why on October 28, 1955, the respondent was again suspen­ ded and charges framed on the additional com­ plaints received against him were delivered to him on October 29, 1956. On November 12, 1956, the respondent submitted his explanation and pleaded that in case the appellant wanted to pursue the enquiry against him, it might be entrusted to the Administrative Tribunal in accordance with the Rules. On June 28, 1958, the Deputy Secretary Board of Revenue, U. P., informed the respondent that in accordance with the orders passed by the appellant his case had been entrusted to the Commis­ sioner, Gorakhpur Division, with directions to take disciplinary proceedings against him, and his request that the charges against him, should be entrusted for investigation to the Administrative Tribunal had be('n rejected. Thereupon, the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on July 14, 1958, aFJ.d prayed that a writ, or a direction or an appropriate order should be passed against the appellant quashing the proceedings intended to be taken against him before the enquiring officer ap­ pointed by . the appellant under Rule 5fi of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. The learned sini:-le Judge who heard the writ petition held that the respondent being a gazetted officer, the appellant was bound to grant his request that the enquiry against him should be 1963 State of U1ttJr Pr11tlesh v. Jngendra Singh Gajendragadkor J. 1963 St•tt •f Utt•r Pr•dtJh •• Jo101dra Sinth G1jrndroz .. dk8r J. 200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [lll64] VOL. held by the Administrative Tribunal appoin!cd under the Rules. That is why the writ petition was allowed and the _order directing the enquiry to be held by the appointed authority under l{ule [ifi of the said Civil Ser\'iccs Rules was quashed. This order was challenged by the appellant by an appeal under the Lcltcrs Patent before a Division Bench of the said High Court. The Division Bench agreed with the view taken by the learned single Judge and dismissed the appeal. The appellant then applied for and obtained a certificate from the said High Court and it is with the said certificate that it has come to this Court. Mr. Hajcla for the appellant contends that the conclusion reached by the Courts' below is not supported on a fair and reasonable construction of Rule 4 (2) of the Rules. The appellant's ca~c is that in the State of U. P. it is competent to the G0vcrnor to direct that disciplinary proceedings against the officers specified in Ruic ·.I of the Rules should be tried before an Administrative Officer, but there is no obligation on the Governor in that behalf. The Governor may, if he so decides direct that the said enquiry ma)• be held uuder Rule fi5 of the Civil Services Rules and conducted by an appropriate authority appointed in that behalf. Whether the enquiry should be held by the Administrative Tribunal, or by an appropriate authority, is a matter entirely within the discretion of the Go,·ernor . .. On the other hand, the High Court has held that so far as cases of gazetted government servants arc concerned, they are covered by Rule 4 (2) of the Rules and on a fair construction of the said Ruic, it is clear that if a gazetted government servant requests that the enquiry against him should be held by the Administrative Tribunal, the Governor is bound .to grant his request. So, the narrow point which arises 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 201 for our decision is which of the two views can be said to represent correctly the effect of Rule 4 (2) of the Rules. Rule 4 reads as follows:- 1963 State of Uttar Pradesh . Y, .T ogendra Singh "4. (1) The Governor may refer to the Gajendragadkar /. tribunal cases relating to an individual - government servant or class of governl!lent servants or government servants m a particular area only in respect of matters involving :- (a} corruption; (b) failure to discharge duties properly; (c) irremediable general inefficiency in a public servant of more than ten years' standing; and (d) personal immorality. ( 2) The Governor may, in respect of a gazetted government servant on his own request, refer his case to the Tribu­ nal in respect of matters referred to in sub-rule (1)." It would be noticed that Rule 4 (1) confers discre­ tion on the Governor to refer to the Tribunal cases falling under clauses (a) to (d) in respect of servants specified by the first part of sub-rule (1 ). In regard to these cases, the government servant concerned cannot claim that the enquiry against him should not be held by a Tribunal and the matter falls to be decided solely in the discretion of the Governor. It is also clear that amongst the classes of servants • to whom sub-rule (1) applies, gazetted government servants are included, so that if Rule 4 (1) had stood by itself, even gazetted government servants would have no right to claim that the enquiry against them should not be h~ld by a Tribunal. 202 . SUPRENIE COURT REPOR ts [1964] VOL. 1963 I(is in the light of this provision that rule 4 (2) has si.1,.f Utw P•aluh to be considered. y, Ja1,.ir• SV.,h Rule 4 (2) deals with the cia» uf gazetted govemmcnt servants and gives them the right to make a request to the Govemor that their cases should be referred to the Tribunal in rt'Spect of matters specified in clauses (a) to (d) ofsubrule (1). The question for our decision is whether like the word "may" in rule 4 (I) which confers the discre­ tion on the Governor, the word "may" in sub­ rule (2) confers discretion on him, or docs the word "may" in sub-rule (2) really mean "shall" or "must"'? There is no doubt that the word "may" generally does not mean "must" or "shall". But it is well­ settled that the word "may" is capable of meaning "must" or "shall" in the light of the context. It is also clear that where a discretion is conferred upon a public authority coupled with an obligation, the word "may" which denotes discretion should be construed to mean a command. Sometimes, the legislature uses the word "may" out of deference to the high status of the authority on whom the power and the obligation are intended to be conferred an<l imposed. In the present case, it is the context which is decisive. The whole purpose of rule 4 (2) would be frustrated if the word "may" in the said rule receives the same construction as in sub-rule (1). · It is because in regard to gazetted government servants the discretion had already been given to the Governor to refer their cases to the Tribunal that the rule-making authority wanted to make a special provision in respect of them as distinguished from other government servants falling under rule 4 (1) and rule 4 (2) has been prescribed, other­ wise rule 4 (2) would be wholly redundant. In other words, the plain and unambiguous object of enacting rule 4 (2) is to provide an option to the gazetted government servants to request the Governor that their cases should be tried by a Tribunal and ' i 2 s.c.:R. stri>:REM:E COURT REPORTS 203 1963 not otherwise. The rule-making authority pre- . sumably thought that having regard to the StateofUttarPraaah status of the gazetted government servants, it would Jogend~~ Singh be legitimate to give such an opinion to them. Therefore, we feel no difficulty in accepting the Gajendragadkar J, view taken by the High Court that rule 4(2) imposes an obligation on the Governor to grant a request made by the gazetted government servant that his case should ho referred to the Tribunal under the Rules. Such a request was admittedly made by the respon· dent and has not been granted. Therefore, we are satisfied that the High Court was right in quashing the proceedings proposed to be · taken by the appe· Hant against the respondent otherwise than by referring his case to the Tribunal under the Rules. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. HARi NARAIN v. BADRI DAS (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, and J. C. SHAH JJ.) Supreme Oourt Practice-Revocation of Special Leave granted earlier by Supreme Oaurt-Effect of inaccurate, untrue and misleading statements in petition for Special Leave. The respondent filed a suit for the ejectment of the appellant. That suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The . respondent filed an appeal in the Court of the Additional Sessionsjudge,Jaipur City. The appeal was accepted and the claim of respondent for ejectment was allowed. The appellant filed an appeal in the Rajasthan High Court but that was dismissed. The High Court also refused to gr~nt a certificate.°~ fitness to ~ppeal to this Court. The appellant filed a petitmn for Special Leave to appeal to this Court and the same was allowed. 1963 March .