State
of Gujarat Vs. Akhilesh C. Bhargav & Ors [1987] INSC 227 (26 August 1987)
MISRA
RANGNATH MISRA RANGNATH DUTT, M.M. (J)
CITATION:
1987 AIR 2135 1987 SCR (3)1091 1987 SCC (4) 482 1987 SCALE (2)428
ACT:
Indian
Police Service (Probation) Rules, 1954: Rules 3(1), 3(3) and
12(bb)--Probationer continuing in service beyond period of probation--Effect
of--Discharge from service of such probationer-Whether valid.
Administrative
Law:
Service
Rules--Administrative Instructions issued to cover gap where there be vacuum or
lacuna--Whether valid.
HEADNOTE:
The
first respondent was appointed to the Indian Police Service on 4.7.1969 and
allotted to the Gujarat State Cadre.
He
was on probation and there was no order of extension of probation. He was
discharged by the impugned order dated 9.4.74.
The
order of discharge was assailed by the first respondent. A Single Judge of the
High Court annulled the order. Two appeals were preferred by the Union of India
and the State to the Division Bench which came to the same conclusion, though
for different reasons.
The
State filed an appeal before this Court, which was resisted by the respondent,
contending that reference to Rule 12(bb) of the Indian Police Service
(Probation) Rules, 1954 brought into the otherwise innocuous order stigma in
sufficient measure warranting a proceeding of the nature contemplated under
Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and that the respondent should have
been treated as a confirmed officer of the cadre at the time the order of
discharge was made.
On
behalf of the State it was contended that no order of extension of probation
was necessary to be made as the process of confirmation was not automatic and
even if the two year period as provided in Rule 3(1) of the Probation Rules had
expired, confirmation would not ipso facto follow and a special order had to be
made.
Dismissing
the appeal, this Court, 1092
HELD:
1. The first respondent having become a confirmed officer of the Gujarat IPS cadre,
under Rule 12(bb) of the Indian Police Service Rules, 1954 his services could
not be brought to an end by an order of discharge since the said Rules had no
application for officer confirmed in the cadre.
Proceedings
in accordance with law were, therefore, necessary to terminate his service.
[1096A-C]
2.1
While the Probation Rules prescribed an initial period of two years of
probation they did not provide any optimum period of probation. Administrative
instructions issued by the Government of India on 16th March, 1973 indicating
the guidelines to be followed in the matter laid down that, save for
exceptional reasons, the period of probation should not be extended by more
than one year and no member of the service should, by convention, be kept on
probation for more than double the normal period i.e. 4 years. [1094F-G;
1095A-B]
2.2
Within the limits of executive powers under the Constitutional scheme it is
open to the apropriate Government to issue instructions to cover the gap where
there be any vacuum or lacuna. Since instructions do not run counter to the
rules in existence, the validity of the instructions cannot be disputed.
[1095C] In the instant case, there was no order of extension and the order of
discharge is about five years after the appointment. The respondent, therefore,
stood confirmed in the cadre on the relevant date when he was discharged.
[1096A] Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., [1968] 1 SCR 111; State
of Punjab v. Dharam Singh, [1968] 3 SCR 1 and Moti Ram Deka etc. v. General
Manager, N.E.F. Railways, Maligaon, Pandu etc., [1964] 5 SCR 683, referred to.
CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1273 of 1979.
From
the Judgment and Order dated 10.11.1978 of the Gujarat High Court in L.P.A. No.
206 of 1978.
T.U.
Mehta, G.A. Shah, Mrs. H. Wahi, M.N. Shroff and K.M.M. Khan for the Appellant.
S.N.
Kacker, Anil Kumar Gupta, Brij Bhushan Sharma and N.P. Mahindra for Respondent
No. 1. 1093 V.C. Mahajan, C. Ramesh and Miss A. Subhashini for Respondent No.2.
The
following Order of the Court was delivered:
This
appeal by Special leave is against the appellate order of the Division Bench of
the Gujarat High Court.
Respondent
No. 1 was appointed to the Indian Police Service on 4.7. 1969 and has been
discharged by the impugned order dated 9.4.1974. After he was appointed by the
Union of India he was allotted to the State cadre of Gujarat and the order of
discharge has been made on the basis of steps taken by the State of Gujarat.
The order of discharge was assailed by filing a writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution. The Single Judge annulled the order. To the Writ petition
both the Union of India and the State of Gujarat were party-respondents.
Against the Single Judge's decision, two appeals were preferred to the Division
Bench. The Division Bench for reasons mostly different from what had been
recorded by the learned Single Judge, came to the same conclusion. Before this
Court, there is only one appeal by the State of Gujarat and the Union of India
has been joined as a respondent. Initially a preliminary objection had been
raised regarding the maintainability of the appeal in the absence of any appeal
by the Union of India but Mr. Kacker appearing for respondent No. 1 has given
up the same. It is, therefore, not necessary to go into that question.
The
order of discharge read as follows:
"Under
clause (bb) of Rule 12 of the Indian Police Service (Probation) Rules, 1954,
the President hereby discharges Shri A.C. Bhargav, a person appointed to the
Indian Police Service, on probation, on the results of the I.A.S. etc.
Examination held in 1968, and ,allocated to the service cadre of Gujarat from
the said service with effect from the date on which this order is served on the
said Shri A.C. Bhargav." Reference to Rule 12(bb), it was contended on
behalf of the respondent, brought into the otherwise innocuous order stigma in
sufficient measure warranting a proceeding of the nature contemplated under
Article 311(2) of the Constitution. It is unnecessary for us to go into that
question as in our opinion the view expressed by the High Court is 1094 quite
sound. We may refer to the Constitution Bench decision of this Court reported
in the case of State of Orissa and Anr. v. Ram Narayan Das, [1961] 1 SCR 606
wherein this Court considered the order of discharge of a police officer on
probation and held that in the case of a probationer observation like
'unsatisfactory work and conduct' would not amount to stigma.
The
other aspect which has been conversed before us at length is as to whether the
respondent should have been treated as a confirmed officer of the cadre at the
time the order of discharge was made. Admittedly, the order of discharge is
about five years after the appointment.
Rule
3(1) of the Indian Police Service (Probation) Rules, 1954, provides that every
person recruited to the service in accordance with Indian Police Service
(Appointment by Competitive Examination) Regulations, 1955, ......
shall
be appointed to the service on probation for a period of two years. At the
relevant time, sub-rule (3) of the said Rules provided that the Central
Government may, if it so thinks fit in any case or class of cases extend the
period of probation. Admittedly, in this case there was no order of extension.
It has been contended that no order of extension is necessary to be made as the
process of confirmation is not automatic and even if the two year period as
provided in Rule 3(1) has expired confirmation would not ipso facto follow and
a special order has to be made.
Reliance
has been placed on a series of decisions of this Court which have held that an
order of confirmation has to be made and confirmation would not follow
automatically.
The
position here, however, is somewhat different.
While
the Probation Rules prescribed an initial period of two years of probation it
did not provide any optimum period of probation. Administrative instructions
were issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, on 16th
March, 1973, indicating the guidelines to be followed in the matter. The
relevant portion thereof may be extracted:
".......
(ii)
It is not desirable that a member of the service should be kept on probation
for years as happens occasionally at present. Save for exceptional reasons, the
period of probation should not, therefore, be extended by more than one year
and no member of the service should, by convertion, be kept on probation for
more than double the normal period i.e. four years. Accordingly, a probationer,
who does not complete the probationers' final examination within a period of
four years, should ordinarily be discharged from the service." It is not
disputed that the circular of the Home Ministry was with reference to the
Indian Police Service (Probation) Rules. We have not been shown that these
instructions run counter to the rules. It is well settled that within the
limits of executive powers under the Constitutional scheme, it is open to the
appropriate Government to issue instructions to cover the gap where there be
any vacuum or lacuna.
Since
instructions do not run counter to the rules in existence, the validity of the
instructions cannot be disputed.
Reliance
has been placed in the courts below on the constitution Bench Judgment of this
Court, and which reported in [ 2968] 1 SCR 111 (Sant Ram Sharma v. State of
Rajasthan and anr.) where Ramaswami J. speaking for the Court stated thus:
"
..... We are unable to accept this argument as correct. It is true that there
is no specific provision in the Rules laying down the principle of promotion of
junior or senior grade officers to selection grade posts. But that does not
mean that till statutory rules are framed in this behalf the Government cannot
issue administrative instructions regarding the principles to be followed in
promotions of the officers concerned to selection grade posts. It is true that
Government cannot amend or supersede statutory rules by administrative
instructions, but if the rules are silent on any particular point Government
can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions not
inconsistent with the rules already framed.
We
are of the view that the rules read with instructions create a situation as
arose for consideration by this Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Dharam
Singh, [1968] 3 SCR
1.
The Constitution Bench of this Court in that case interpreted the Punjab
Educational Service (Provincialised Cadre) Class III Rules and found that there
was a maximum limit of three years beyond which the period of probation could
not be extended. When an officer appointed initially on probation was found to
be continuing in service beyond three years without a written order of
confirmation, this Court held that it tant amounts to confirmation. In view of
what we have stated above we are in agreement with the High Court about the
combined effect of the rules and instructions. We hold that the respondent
stood confirmed in the cadre on the relevant date when he was discharged. For a
confirmed officer in the cadre, the Probation Rules did not apply and
therefore, proceedings in accordance with law, were necessary to terminate
service.
That
exactly was the ratio of the decision in Moti Ram Deka etc. v. General Manager,
N.E.F. Railways, Maligaon, Pandu etc., [1964] 5 SCR 683. On the analysis
indicated above, the net result, therefore, is that the respondent No. 1 had
become a confirmed officer of the Gujarat I.P.S. cadre and under rule 12(bb) of
the Probation Rules his services could not be brought to an end by the impugned
order of discharge.
The
appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
N.P.V.
Appeal dismissed.
Back
