Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

29. On the above grounds, I overrule the second contention raised by Mr. Mitra.

30. The third contention of Mr. Mitra is that the proceedings are invalid inasmuch as the State Public Service Commission was not consulted as required by Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution.

31. Article 320(3)(c) provides that the State Public Service Commission shall be consulted on all disciplinary matters affecting a person serving under the Government of a State in a civil capacity.

32. The first question is whether Article 320(3)(c) applies to all civil servants of the State.

33. Though the sub-Article is widely worded, in my opinion, the sub-Article was intended to apply only to the civil servants referred to in Sub-article (1) Article 320 viz., those civil servants for whose appointment an examination has to be held by the Public Service Commission. I cannot persuade myself to hold that a menial servant of the humblest category can claim the privileges conferred by Article 320(3).

34. Assuming however that Article 320(3)(c) is applicable to a civil servant like the appellant, two further matters have to be considered.

35. In the first place, whether the proceedings partake of the nature of disciplinary matters. In my opinion, the answer must be in the affirmative.

36. In the next place, we have to consider the consequences of a failure to comply with the provisions of - Article 320(3)(c).

37. Article 320(3)(c) is a reproduction of. Section 266 of the Government of India Act, 1935-with certain modifications.

38. In -- 'Purnandu Nath v. Tapan KumarV Matter No. 7 of 1949 (Cal) (C) which fell to be decided under Section 266, Government of India Act, 1935, it was held by Banerjee J. that the provisions of Section 266 are directory and a failure to consult the Public Service Commission before appointing Tapan Kumar Chatterji was held not to have invalided the appointment.

43. The fact that Article 320(3) requires consultation and that Article 323(3) assumes that the advice given by the Public Services Com mission may not be accepted in certain cases, indicates that a failure to comply with the direction in Article 320(3) does not render the disciplinary proceedings inoperative. I

44. The observations of Bose J. in --'Munna Lal v. Harold R. Scott', 57 Cal WN 157 (E) to the contrary effect are obiter dicta.

45. In the last mentioned case, it was however held that The Bengal Public Service Commission Regulation 1937 has been saved by Article 313 of the Constitution, read with Clause 26 of the Adaptation of Law and Order 1950, issued under the Constitution, and that it was clear from the said regulation that it was "not necessary to consult the Public Service Commission when an Officer is suspended in order to facilitate proper investigation of a case against the suspended officer or for starting departmental proceedings against such Officer or for making an order of dismissal by an officer competent to pass such order" (p. 160).