Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(a) and (b) of Clause 3 of Article 320 of the Constitution of India in the case of the services and posts specified in Schedule to the Regulations. In the Schedule appended to the Regulations of 1958, there is no specific mention with regard to the civilian in defence services. Moreover, the controlling Sub Regulation (2) of Regulation 5 is confined to the statutory application for consultation with the UPSC in the case of appointments and promotions made by various ministries/departments of the Government of India. The regulations do not bring within their ambit the matters which have been specified in sub-

clause (c) of clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution. The Regulations of 1958, therefore, cannot cover the matters falling within the purview of Article 320(3)(c). These regulations apply only with regard to consultation in the case of appointments and promotions.

8. Even if it is accepted that the exemption as provided in Regulations of 1958 applies to the civilians employed in defence services, the fact remains that there is a specific provision in Rule 9(1) of the Pension Rules, 1972 which lays down that if a pensioner is found guilty of grave mis-conduct or negligence during the period of service, the UPSC shall be consulted before any final orders are passed. This provision cannot be circumvented by aid of the Regulations. Rules are superior form of legislation than the regulations. If there is any conflict between the rules and the regulations, the former have to take precedence and to prevail, whereas the conflicting provision in the latter has to be ignored. Respondent No.2, therefore, may not take shelter of the provisions made in the Regulations for not consulting the UPSC in the matter. Specific provision contained in the Pension Rules, 1972 requiring such a consultation could not have, thus, been avoided.