Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18. Article 320 of the Constitution deals with the functions of Public Service Commission and provides that it shall be the duty of the Union and the State Public Service Commissions to conduct examinations for appointments to the services of the Union and the services of the State respectively.

19. Article 320(3)(c ) reads:

"(c) on all disciplinary matters affecting a person serving under the Government of India or the Government of a State in a civil capacity, including memorials or petitions relating to such matters;

20. A Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, AIR 1957 SC 912 considered the question as to whether the consultation of the Commission under Article 320(3)(c) is mandatory and binding on the appropriate authority.

21. The arguments that the non-compliance of Article 320(3)(c) vitiates the order passed by the appropriate authority have been repelled by the Court at SCR. pp 543-544: (AIR pp.916-17, paras 7-9) "7. ...Perhaps, because of the use of word „shall‟ in several parts of Article 320, the High Court was led to assume that the provisions of Article 320(3)(c) were mandatory, but in our opinion, there are several cogent reasons for holding to the contrary. In the first place, the proviso to Article 320, itself, contemplates that the President or the Governor, as the case may be, „may make regulations specifying the matters in which either generally, or in any particular class of case or in particular circumstances, it shall not be necessary for a Public Service Commission to be consulted.‟ The words quoted above give a clear indication of the intention of the Constitution makers that they did envisage certain cases or classes of cases in which the Commission need not be consulted. If the provisions of Article 320 were of a mandatory character, the Constitution would not have left it to the discretion of the Head of the Executive Government to undo those provisions by making regulations to the contrary. If it had been intended by the makers of the Constitution that consultation with the Commission should be mandatory, the proviso would not have been there, or, at any rate, in the terms in which it stands. That does not amount to saying that it is open to the Executive Government completely to ignore the existence of the Commission or to pick and choose cases in which it may or may not be consulted. Once, relevant regulations have been made, they are meant to be followed in letter and in spirit and it goes without saying that consultation with the Commission on all disciplinary matters affecting a public servant has been specifically provided for, in order, first, to give an assurance to the Services that a wholly independent body, not directly concerned with the making of orders adversely affecting public servants, has considered the action proposed to be taken against a particular public servant, with an open mind; and, secondly, to afford the Government unbiased advice and opinion on matters vitally affecting the morale of public services. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the Executive Government when it proposes to take any disciplinary action against a public servant, to consult the Commission as to whether the action proposed to be taken was justified and was not in excess of the requirements of the situation.

9. Thirdly, Article 320 or the other articles in Chapter II of Part XIV of the Constitution deal with the constitution of the Commission and appointment and removal of the Chairman or other members of the Commission and their terms of service as also their duties and functions. Chapter II deals with the relation between Government and the Commission but not between the Commission and a public servant. Chapter II containing Article 320, does not, in terms, confer any rights or privileges on an individual public servant nor any constitutional guarantee of the nature contained in Chapter I of that Part particularly Article 311. Article 311, therefore, is not, in any way, controlled by the provisions of Chapter II of Part XIV, with particular reference to Article 320."

Unless, it can be held, and we are not prepared to hold, that Article 320(3)(c) is in the nature of a rider or proviso to Article 311, it is not possible to construe Article 320(3)(c) in the sense of affording a cause of action to a public servant against whom some action has been taken by his employer."

11. Elaborate reasons have been given by the Bench with reference to the view taken by a Constitution Bench decision, and we highlight, after noting Rule 32 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The decision in S.N.Narula's case and S.K.Kapoor's case do not note either Article 320 of the Constitution of India nor do they note Rule 32 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 nor do they note the Constitution Bench decision.