Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

From a perusal of the aforesaid sub-rule it appears that the joint cadre constituted for any group of States is other than the joint cadre of Union Territories. Rule 2 of these Rules defines the 'Joint Cadre Authority' and the 'Constituent States'. Same is reproduced hereunder:

"2. Definitions - In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) "Joint Cadre Authority" means the Committee of Representatives referred to in rule 4.
(2) The representatives of the Governments of the Constituent States may either be members of an All-India Service or Ministers in the Council of Ministers of the Constituent States, as may be specified by the Governments of the Constituent States."

From a conjoint reading of rule 2(a) and rule 4, the concept of the 'Joint Cadre Authority' as emerges, means a committee comprising representatives of the constituent States of the joint cadre. Such representatives may be Ministers of the constituent States or members of all India services of the State cadre. The functions and duties of the Joint Cadre Authority have been defined under rule 5, which has already been reproduced hereinabove. From a perusal of the Rules of 1954 and the Rules of 1972, we notice that 'joint cadre' as defined under the Rules of 1954 comprises of the States who join to constitute a joint cadre under rule 3(2), whereas 'Joint Cadre Authority' is defined under rule 2(a) read with rule 4 of the Rules of 1972 to mean a committee of representatives referred to in rule 4. We may herein notice that there is a separate definition of 'Joint Cadre OA-1528/2016 Authority' under the Rules of 1954, i.e., rule 2(d). Said definition reads as under:

"(d) 'State Government concerned', in relation to a Joint cadre, means the Joint Cadre Authority."

Under rule 2(d) of the 1954 Rules, the 'State Government concerned' is defined to be the 'Joint Cadre Authority', whereas under rule 2(a) read with rule 4 of the 1972 Rules, the 'Joint Cadre Authority' is defined to mean a committee consisting of representatives of each of the Governments of the constituent States. Sub-rule (2) of rule 4 of the 1972 Rules empowers the Government of the constituent State to appoint a committee of either members of an all India service or Ministers in the Council of Ministers of the constituent State to be the representatives of the Government in the Joint Cadre Authority. It is in this context that the notification dated 03.04.1989 was issued whereby the Joint Cadre Authority was constituted with the representatives of the constituent States. The States of Arunachal Pradesh, Goa and Mizoram are represented by their respective Chief Secretaries, whereas Additional Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs, in-charge of UT Division represents the UT segment, and Joint Secretary (UT) in the Ministry of Home Affairs is to act as Convener. Thus, the Joint Cadre Authority constitutes five representatives, representing the States and Union Territories. Here, OA-1528/2016 it may be relevant to note that under the 1954 Rules, the expression 'State' has been defined under rule 2(c), which reads as under:

18. The duties and functions of the Joint Cadre Authority are clearly defined under rule 5 of the 1972 Rules. From a bare perusal of rule 5, it can be conveniently made out that the function of the Joint Cadre Authority is simply to determine the names of the members of all India services who may be required to serve from time to time in connection with the affairs of each of the constituent States of the OA-1528/2016 joint cadre, and the period or periods for which their services are to be made available to that Government. Under sub-rule (2) of rule 5 of the 1972 rules, in the event of disagreement on any matter among the members of the Joint Cadre Authority, the matter is to be referred to the Central Government for decision, and the Governments of the constituent States are under an obligation to give effect to the decision of the Central Government. The plain language of rule 5 makes it abundantly clear that the functions and duties of the Joint Cadre Authority are merely to identify the names of members of all India Services constituting the joint cadre who may be required to serve in a particular State and the period or periods for such postings. To initiate disciplinary action and to impose penalty on any delinquent member of a joint cadre is not one of the defined functions of the Joint Cadre Authority, and thus beyond its purview. It is in this context that the decision of the Joint Cadre Authority in its resolution adopted in October, 1989 is to be viewed. The 1989 resolution reproduced hereinabove confers authority and jurisdiction upon the Ministry of Home Affairs to deal with the disciplinary matters of members of all India services comprising the joint cadre and also to deal with their transfers. Apart from the fact that the said resolution was signed by only two out of five members, and cannot be said to be a decision of the Joint Cadre Authority, the fundamental question that continues to haunt the respondents is the validity of the OA-1528/2016 decision per se. How could an authority, even constituted by a Government notification, take a decision which is beyond its purview? At the cost of repetition, we may say that the duties and functions of the Joint Cadre Authority having been defined under rule 5 of the 1972 Rules, this Authority had/has absolutely no jurisdiction, power or legal authority to adopt such a resolution and to confer powers upon one of the constituents of the joint cadre, as no such powers vest with the Authority under any law. All ancillary questions that the Ministry of Home Affairs represents the Union Territories, and the Union Territories being defined as 'State' for purposes of determination of the cadre under the 1954 Rules, would be irrelevant and insignificant. The legislative intent of the rule- making authority has to be gathered from the rules. We have already noticed the Discipline and Appeal Rules, i.e., the 1969 Rules, which specifically deal with the discipline and appeal for the members of the all India services. Rule 7(b) of the 1969 Rules confers power upon the State Government of a State to institute disciplinary action against a member of the service who is serving in connection with the affairs of the State or any authority wholly or substantially owned or controlled by such Government of a State, or an authority created by an Act of the legislature of that State. The definitions under rule 2 of the 1969 Rules further define the 'Government', and in respect to the joint cadre, the Government of all the States or the Government of a OA-1528/2016 State nominated by the Governments of all the States specifically empowered in a particular matter, is the competent authority for initiating disciplinary action. Insofar as the Joint Cadre Authority is concerned, it is not empowered under the 1969 Rules to act as the disciplinary authority, and under the 1972 rules said Authority has no such competence in terms of rule 5 thereof which defines the duties and functions of the Joint Cadre Authority. To strengthen the contention of the applicant, Mr. Nidhesh Gupta has further referred to the legislative intent of the rule-making authority. While doing so, he has relied upon the "Business of Government of Arunachal Pradesh (Allocation) Rules, 1998" as notified vide notification dated 26.05.1998. These Rules have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (3) of Article 166 of the Constitution of India. Rule 3 of these Rules deals with the allocation of subjects to departments etc. Rule 3 is reproduced hereunder: