Prasad Sinha Vs. State of Bihar & ANR  INSC 172 (16 July 1987)
R.S. (CJ) PATHAK, R.S. (CJ) MISRA RANGNATH SINGH, K.N. (J)
1987 AIR 1894 1987 SCR (3) 523 1987 SCC (3) 650 JT 1987 (3) 84 1987 SCALE (2)35
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930-- Rules 14, 18 and
57(5)--Read with Constitution of India--Art.235--Right of appeal against
imposition of penalty--Whether accrues to a member if a Provincial Service in
the absence of a notification issued under r. 18.
14 of the Civil Services Rules, 1930 classifies Public Services in India into a
number of categories and one such category is constituted of the 'Provincial
r. 18 thereof declares that it shall consist of such services under the
administrative control of the Local Government of a Governor's Province as the
Local Government may from time to time declare, by notification in the local
Official Gazette, to be included in the Provincial Services of that Province.
Rule 49 specifies the penalties which could be imposed upon the members of the
Services specified in r. 14. Rule 56 read with sub-r. (5) of r. 57 confers on a
person belonging to any of the classified services specified in r. 14 a right
of appeal to the Governor against an order imposing any of the penalties
specified in r. 49, which right is saved by Art. 235 of the Constitution.
appellant, a member of the Bihar Judicial Service, challenged an order of
punishment served on him inter alia on the ground that the appeal filed by him
to the Governor against the order of punishment should not have been with- held
by the High Court but should have been dispatched to the State Government for
consideration. The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that no
appeal lay to the State Government.
In the absence of positive material providing that the Subordinate Judicial
Service can be regarded as having been brought within the scope of the Civil
Services Rules of 1930. it is not open to the appellant to rely on the right of
appeal created by those Rules. [525G] 524 In this case, neither counsel was
able to refer to any notification designating the Subordinate Judicial Service,
of which the appellant was a member. as one of the Provincial Services
specified in r. 14. [525F-G]
Appellate Jurisdiction: Civil Appeal No. 3534 of 1986.
the Judgment and Order dated 17.2. 1986 of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No.
6215 of 1985.
Mukhoty, S.K. Bhattacharya and U.S. Prasad for the Appellant. Jaya Narain, R.P.
Singh, B.P. Singh and Ranjit Kumar for the Respondent.
Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK, CJ. This appeal by Special Leave
is directed against the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Patna
dismissing a Writ Petition filed by the appellant.
appellant is an Additional Subordinate Judge in the Bihar Judicial Service.
Disciplinary proceedings were taken against him and ended in an order imposing
the punishment of censure, the withholding of annual increments for two years,
postponement of his case for promotion for a like period and the denial of
emoluments in excess of the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension.
The appellant filed a Writ Petition in the High Court challenging the order of
punishment on several grounds but did not succeed. He urged also that the
appeal filed by him to the Governor against the order of punishment should not
have been withheld by the High Court but should have been dispatched to the
State Government for consideration. The High Court held that no appeal lay to
the State Government and therefore rejected the plea.
16 September, 1986 this Court granted special leave to the appellant confined
to the question whether an appeal lay to the Governor against the order of the
is the sole question for consideration before us.
support his claim to a right of appeal the appellant relies on 525 the Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1930. It is pointed out
that these Civil Services Rules of 1930 have been kept in force by the State
Government by notification No. III/RI/10 1/63-8051A dated 3 July, 1963 issued
under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. The submission of the
appellant is that the right of appeal is saved by Article-235 of the
Constitution. Article 235 of the Constitution provides that the control over
District Courts and Courts subordinate thereto, including the posting and
promotion of, and the grant of leave to, persons belonging to the judicial
service of the State and holding any post inferior to the post of District
Judge shall be vested in the High Court but that nothing in that Article may be
construed as taking away from any such person any right of appeal which he may
have under the law regulating the conditions of service.
question is whether the appellant is governed by the Civil Services Rules of
1930, Rule 14 classifies the Public Services in India into a number of
categories, and one such category is constituted of the Provincial Services.
Rule 18 declares that the Provincial Services shall consist of such services
under the administrative control of the Local Government of a Governor's
Province as the Local Government may from time to time declare, by notification
in the local official Gazette, to be included in the Provincial Services of
that Province. Rule 49 specifies the penalties which could be imposed upon
members of the Services specified in Rule 14. Rule 56 confers a right of appeal
on a person belonging to any of the classified Services specified in Rule 14
against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 49. Rule 57(5)
member of a Provincial Service .......
appeal to the Governor from an order passed by the Local Government".
enquired of learned counsel for the parties whether a Notification had been
issued designating the Subordinate Judicial Service, of which the appellant is
a member, as one of the Provincial Services specified in Rule 14. Neither
counsel was able to refer to any Notification in that be- half. In the absence
of positive material providing that the Subordinate Judicial Service can be
regarded as having been brought within the scope of the Civil Services Rules of
1930, it is not open to the appellant to rely on the right of appeal created by
attention has been drawn to the fact that the Civil Services Rules of 1'930
were continued with effect from 22 December 1956, by 526 Notification No.
III/RI/101/63-8051-A dated 3 July, 1963.
does not advance the case of the appellant any further because the Notification
can take effect in respect of such Service only as has already been brought
within the scope of those Rules.
leaving this case, we must give expression to our great disappointment that
neither party was able to indicate what were the Rules which governed the
Judicial Service to which the appellant belonged. If no Notification was issued
applying the Civil Service Rules of 1930 to such Judicial Service, there must
surely be some other body of Rules which does apply. And if there is none, it
is time that such body of Rules was framed. The present regrettable state of
confusion must be ended. It would certainly be a matter of gratification for
the Judicial officers of the State of Bihar to know where they stand.
the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed but in the circumstances we make
no orders as to costs.