This case analysis id written by Aishwarya Suradkar during her internship with Le Droit India.
- CASE NAME AND CITATIONS:
● Title of the case : Shamsher Singh & Anr. vs State of Punjab
● Court : Supreme Court of India
● Year : 1974
● Citation :AIR 1974 SC 2192
- FACTS OF THE CASE :
Two appeals against the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s ruling are at issue in this case. Shamsher Singh and Ishwar Chand Agrawal, the appellants, enrolled in the Punjab Civil Services (judicial branch). On the other hand, the appellants were fired without cause. “The Governor of Punjab is pleased to terminate the services of Shri Shamsher Singh, subordinate Judge on probation based under Rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952 (Now, as Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970) with immediate effect,” read an order dated April 27, 1967, regarding the termination of the subordinate judge’s employment. By order of the Punjabi government, in the name of the governor, the appellant Shamsher Singh’s services were terminated without explanation. Not too many years later, on December 15, 1969, an order was made ending the appellant Ishwar Chand Agrawal’s employment. “The Governor of Punjab is pleased to terminate with immediate effect the services of Shri Ishwar Chand Agarwal, Punjab Civil Services (Judicial branch), in accordance with Rule 7(3) of Part ‘D’ of the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951, as amended from time to time,” the order said, following the recommendation made by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana. - ISSUES
• Whether the Governor is empowered to make decisions on the appointment and removal of Subordinate Judicial Service members?
ARGUMENTS
APPELLANT:
•The appellants contended that, as the recognized head of state, the Governor alone possesses the power to designate and dismiss judges holding positions in the subordinate courts.
•The Supreme Court’s decision in the Sardari Lal case, which held that an order under article 311 of the Indian Constitution cannot be granted unless the President or the Governor is personally satisfied, was cited by the appellants.
•The appellants contended that Rule 7(2) of Part D of the Punjab Civil Rules permits the Governor, at the recommendation of the High Court, to dismiss any Subordinate Judge without cause or to reinstate him to his previous post during his probationary period. It is thought that the Rules of Business Rule 18 are not applicable because of Rule 7(2).
RESPONDENT:
•The State contends that the Governor exercises his power with the guidance and assistance of the Council of Ministers, not on his own initiative.
•The state also contends that the Governor is the constitutional head of the state and that, like the President, who is the constitutional head of the Union, both of them carry out their responsibilities and exercise their authority with the support and advice of the council of ministers.
- JUDGEMENT
Justice A.N. Ray delivered the majority ruling in this case. The court decides that while the state governor is using this sanctioned constitutional powers, he has to follow the Council of Ministers’ counsel and backing.
The Governor is constrained by the support and counsel of the Council of Ministers because the authority to choose and dismiss members of the inferior courts is likewise a formal indigenous or tentative power. The Governor isn’t authorized to make independent judgments in this regard by A 234 of the Constitution.
A cabinet system of government is characterized by the sole decision- making authority of civil retainers and will be held responsible of each minister for all conduct or inactions taken within their separate ministries. A government hand makes choices on the government’s on it’s behalf.
As the recognized head of state, the governor selects and removes officers grounded on their suggestion and with the help of their ministers. In this case, the Court has decided that the Governor and the President must always act with the counsel and support of the ministers when dealing with matters of either an superintendent or legislative nature.
The Council of Ministers must support the governor if he acts singly. Since the governor appoints and removes inferior members of the judicial service, this is an administrative action that has to be done with the ministers’ guidance and support. nonetheless, in these kinds of circumstances, the decision is to antedate farther investigation.
However, he may be entitled to protection, If the parolee’s service is terminated without following Composition 311( 2) conditions. An disquisition into his alleged malfeasance. As per Composition 235, the governor is needed to follow the High Court’s recommendations. District Judges were to be instructed to conduct an disquisition by the High Court.
The Court decided that the termination order was illegal and that the authorities should look into the complainant’s eligibility. Ishwar Chand’s order to terminate his employment was overruled.
- RATIO DECENTI
The Governor is granted the executive authority of the State by Article 154(1) of the Constitution.
Within the parameters of Articles 153 and 154 of the Constitution, the governor acts as the executive head of the State.
When the Governor is using the State’s executive authority, Article 163 permits the Governor to request assistance and counsel from the Council of Ministers.
Subordinate judges are appointed and removed under Article 234 of the Constitution, although ministers are not granted the same authority under the State of Punjab’s Rules of Business.
- LEGAL PRECEDENT CITED
In the case of Sardari Lal Vs Union of India & Ors(1947),
In compliance with the Constitution’s Article 311(2)(c), the President issued an order. Before removing a worker from the public sector, the President must be personally satisfied.
Moti Ram Deka etc. Vs. General Manager (1963)
It was decided whether Article 311 was violated by the provisions of Articles 148(3) and 149(3) of the Constitution, which provide the termination of a permanent job with a specified notice period. In this instance, it was decided that because Article 311(2) conflicted with the provisions of Article 148(3) and 149(3) of the constitution, they were invalid. Since it is outside the scope of Article 154, the case’s decision does not support the argument that the governor cannot give the authority to fire a servant at will. A public servant’s tenure is determined by their eligibility under Article 311 of the Constitution.
U.N.Rao vs Indira Gandhi (1971)
The Indian Constitution was framed with the British Parliamentary system in mind, the court said. It was also mentioned that developing a solid government policy is the executive branch’s primary duty. The Legislature will have control over the executive branch. According to Article 74(1) of the Constitution, the President must receive advice from the Council of Ministers, headed by the Prime Minister, about the operation of the Legislature.
- CONCLUSION
The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s two appeals serve as the foundation for the current case. In this instance, the appellants had enlisted in the public civil service. Ishwar Chand Agrawal and Shamsher Singh, however, were placed on probation.Shamsher Singh was fired without cause, according to a Punjabi government order dated April 27, 1967. The other appellant, Ishwar Chand Agrawal, had his employment terminated on December 15, 1969, as a result of recommendations put forth by the Governor’s High Court.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court addressed the issue and gave a succinct explanation of rules 7(3) and 9, which control the determination of the questions regarding when a probationer’s termination from service is considered to be a discharge from the service and when it is considered to be a punishment.
