Holding

The Rules confer concurrent power on the Government, as an authority subordinate to the appointing authority, to dismiss a subordinate service employee, and no inherent right of appeal exists against an order made by the Governor; the employee’s only remedy is a review petition under Rule 38, which he did not pursue.

Summary

The respondent, N. Ramanaiah, an Assistant Engineer, was found to have misappropriated bitumen worth over Rs. 40 lakh. A departmental enquiry proved the charge, after which the Government of Andhra Pradesh, with the concurrence of the State Public Service Commission, dismissed him under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. The High Court set aside the dismissal, holding that the order, passed by the State Government instead of the appointing authority, deprived the employee of his statutory right of appeal. The Supreme Court held that Rule 14(2) of the Rules expressly empowers the Government, as an authority subordinate to the appointing authority, to impose dismissal, and that no inherent right of appeal exists against an order made in the name of the Governor; the only remedy is a review petition under Rule 38, which the respondent failed to file. Consequently, the dismissal order was upheld and the High Court's decision was set aside. The appeal by the Government was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a dismissal order passed by the State Government, rather than the appointing authority, violates the employee's right of appeal under the service rules and Article 311 of the Constitution.
Whether the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 confer jurisdiction on the Government to impose dismissal on a subordinate service employee.
Whether the Constitution of India, particularly Articles 311(1) and 311(2), bars dismissal by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority.
Whether the employee was entitled to any remedy other than a review petition under Rule 38.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 309, s. Article 311(1), s. Article 311(2)

Subjects

civil servicedisciplinary dismissalright of appealArticle 311review petitiondepartmental enquiryservice rulesconstitutional law

Judgment

[2009) 9 S.C.R. 754

A GOVERNMENT OF AP. & ANR.
v.
N. RAMANAIAH
(Civil Appeal No.2023 of 2006)
MAY 14, 2009
B
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND a. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.]
+-
Service Law:

c Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control
and Appeal) Rules, 1991:

rr.9(x), 14(2), 32 and 38 - Dismissal of employee by ,.
Government instead of appointing authority -:- Propriety of -
Remedy - Held: The Rules clearly empowered not only the
D appointing authority but also the Government to impose
appropriate punishment upon the delinquent for pro,ven
charge of misconduct - A right of appeal is not an inherent
right, but subject to relevant rules - When order under r.38 is
passed by Government itself in the name of Governor, there
would be no right of appeal - Remedy of review under r. 38
was available, which was not availed of by delinquent -
Judgment of High Court interfering with order of dismissal
passed by Government set aside.

Constitution of India, 1950:

Articles 311(1) and 311(2) - Government servant -
Opportunity of hearing - Dismissal order passed by
Governmen( itself instead of appointing authority - Held:
There is nothing in the Constitution which debars the
Government from exercising the power' of the appointing
authority, which is subordinate to Government, to dismiss ~
Government servant from service - In the instant case, r; 38
providing for remedy of review, and rule 14 (2) took care to

754
GOVERNMENT OF A.P. & ANR. v. N. RAMANAIAH 755

see that constitutional guarantee enshrined in Article 311(1) A
was . protected - Andhra Pradesh Cil1il Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 - rr. 14(2)
and 38.

A departmental enquiry was in$tituted against the
8
respondent, an Assistant Engineer In the R and B
Department of Andhra Pradesh, on the charge that he
misappropriated bitumen worth more than Rs. 40 lakh
belonging to tl'le Government. On the report of the
Enquiry Officer finding the charge against the . C
respondent proved, the Government issued a show
cause notice to him under r.21 (4) of the Andhra Pradesh
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
1991 of proposed punishment of dismissal. On receipt of
the defence statement, the Government with concurrence
of the State Public Service Commission dismissed the D
-respondent from sevice. The A.P. Administrative Tribunal,
upheld the dismissal order. But the High Court in the.writ
petition filed by the respondent quashed the said order
on the ground that the order of dismissal having been
passed by the State Government, the employee was E
deprived of his right of appeal.

In the instant appeal field by the State Government,
...
t the question for consideration before the Court was :
whether the order of dismissal passed by the State F
Government suffered from any illegality on the ground
that it deprived the respondent of his valuable right to
prefer ~n appeal had it been passed by the appointing
authority which wa$ $ubordinate to the Government; and
consequently, whether the order suffered from any G
jurisdictional error.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HelEt: 1.1. Sub-rule (2) of _r. 14 of the Andhra Pradesh
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, H
756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 9 S.C.R.

A ~991 clearly enables not only the appointing authority but
any authority to which the appointing authority is
$ubordinate to impose penalties including the dismissal
of Government servant from service. The power is
concurrently conferred upon the appointing authority as
s well as the authority to which the appointing authority is
subordinate. There is no dispute that the Engineer-in-
Chief being the appointing authority in respect of the post
that was held by the respondent at the time of initiation
of disciplinray enquiry was the disciplinary authority
c (competent to impose upon the respondent the penalty
. of dismissal under r.9) and was subordinate to the
Government. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
Government had no jurisdiction or authority under the
Rules to impose a major penalty on· a member of
Subordinate Service. [Para_ 11] [764-F-H; 765-A-B]
0
1.2. The Constitution /of India being .the
transcendental law, the rule making authority by making
r. 14(2) took care to see that constitutional guarantee
enshrined in Article 311(1) of the Con~titution which was
E available to the Government servant, was protected. That
the construction placed by the Court on the expression
'subordinate' is in consonance with the meaning and
import of the word' 'subordinate' occurring in Articel
311 (1) of the Constitution is apparent from many a
ft decisions of the this Court. There is nothing in the
Constitiution which debars the Government from
exercising the power of appointing authority to dismiss
a Government servant from service. [Para 11] [765-B-D]

Sampuran Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1982(3) SCC 200;
G ·State of Madras Vs. G. Sundaram AIR 1965 SC 1103; The
State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Ram Naresh Lal 1970(3) SCC 173;
.Jai Jai Ram and Ors: Vs. U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation, Lucknow andOrs. 1996(4) sec 727, relied on.

H
GOVERNMENT OF AP. & ANR. v. N. RAMANAIAH 757

-~
K.C. Chandrasekharan Vs. State of Kera/a AIR 1964 A
Kerala 87, Approved.

Surjit Gi10rh vs. Chairman and Managing Director, UCO
Bank and Ors. 1995 (2) SCC 474, Distinguished

Electronics Corporation of India Vs. G. Muralidhar 2001 B
(10) sec 43, referred to.
---. 2.1. A right of appeal no doubt is a substantive one
but not inherent or fundamental right. No appeal lies to
the higher authoities as a matter of right unless provided c
for by the law. Rule 32 of the Rules says that
notwithstanding anything contained therein, no appeal
shall lie against any order made by the Governor. In the
instant case, the impugned order of dismissal was made
by the Government in the name of Governor; therefore, D
there is no right of ar,eal as such against the order of
'* dismissal ·made by the Government. [Para 14] [770-D-F]

2.2. It is not as if there is no remedy available against
the order passed by the Government dismissing a
Government servant from its service. Rule 38 of the Rules E
lays down that a member of State Service or a member
of Subordinate Service in whose case the Government
has passed original orders, shall not be entitled to ~peal
~
+ but shall be entitled to make in his name, within the
prescribed period a petition to the Government for review F
of the order, on any of the grounds mentioned therein.
The power conferred upon the Government to review its
own order is very wide. In the instant case, the
respondent failed to avail the remedy provided for under
r.38. [Para 14] [770-G-H; 771-A, E-F] G
~
-4 3. The plea that exercise of the power of the
disciplinary authority by the Government in some cases
while not doing so in other cases results in discrimination
between one set of Government servants and another,
~
H
758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R. -

A has no merit, since the constitutional validity of r. 14(2)
which enables the Government to award punishment
apart from the disciplinary authority is not challenged.
(Para 17] [773-F-H; 774-A]

A. Sudhakar Vs. Post Master General, and Anr. 2006 (4)
8
sec 348, referred to
4. The judgment of the High Court interfering with the
order of dismissal passed by the Government cannot be
sustained and is set aside. [Para 20] [77 4-G]
c
Case Law Reference:
1982(3) sec 200 relied on Para 11
1910 (3) sec 113 relied on Para 11
D 1996 (4) sec 121 relied oo P1ra 11
AIR 1964 Kerala 87 approved Para 12
AIR 19(?6 se 1103 relied on Para 13

E 1995 (2) SC~ 474 distinguished Para 15
2001 (10) sec 43 referred to Para 18
2006 (4) sec 348 referred to Para 18
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
F
2023 of 2006.
From the Judgment & Order dated 28.04.2003 of the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No.
2121 of 2003.
G
R. Sundaravardhan, D. Bharathi Reddy and V. Prabhakar
Rao for the Appellants.

P.S. Narasimha, M. Srinivas R. Rao, Abid Ali Beeran P.,

H
GOVERNMENT OF AP. & ANR. v. N, RAMANAIAH 759

~t
K. Parmeshwar and Johh Mathew for the Respondents. A

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. 1. This appeal by the
Government of Andhra Pradesh has been filed challenging the
final judgment and order dated 28 ..04.2003 of the High Court B
of judicature of Andhra Pradesh passed in Writ Petition
No.2121/03 whereby the High Court allowed the Writ Petition
-~
filed by the respondent herein. The High Court by the impugned
order quashed the order dated 17 .04.2001 passed by the
appellant dismissing the respondent from service. c
2. Relevant facts leading to filing of this appeal by the State
may briefly be stated as under:
""""
3. The respondent herein was initially appointed as Over-
D
Seer in the year 1966 which post was re-designated as
·-jr._ Assistant Engineer in the year 1974. He was in-charge of
Bitumen stores between May 1990 and September 1994 while
working as the Assistant Engineer in R&B Department, Karim
Nagar District, Andhra Pradesh. It was brought to the notice of
the appellant that the respondent while working at the said place E
misappropriated huge quantities of 425 MT of bulk bitumen and
71.00 MT of pack bitumen. The Engineer-in-chief (R&B)
.,. Administration, was accordingly directed by the Government to
/.. • frame appropriate charges against the respondent and others
involved in the misappropriation under sub-rule (3), of Rule 20 F
of AP.Civil Services (CC & A) Rules, 1991 (herein referred to
as the 'Rules') against the respondent and others concerned.
The Engineer-in-chief accordingly framed_ articles of charges
as against the respondent. The Government issued orders
appointing a Member of Commissionerate of Inquiries as the G
..., "' Enquiry Officer ,to conduct departmental enquiry against the
respondent and others for the irregularities of large scale
misappropriation of bitumen belonging to Government valued
~ at about more than Rs. Forty Lakhs. The respondent was placed
under suspension by the order dated 13.08.1998. The Enquiry H
760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R.

A Officer after making an enquiry as is required in law has
submitted his report in which it is held that the respondent who
was incharge of stores has not been able to properly account
for missing quantities of bitumen and accordingly held that the
charges have been duly proved against him.
B
4. The Government having examined the Enquiry Officer's
report and material available on record provisionally decided
to impose a major penalty of dismissal from service on the
respondent. A show cause notice under Rule 21 (4) of the Rules
was served on the respondent requiring him to explain as to
C why the major penalty of dismissal should not be imposed on
him. A copy of the Enquiry Officer's report has been duly
furnished to the delinquent to which he submitted his written
statement. The Government having examined the written
statement of defence found no merit in it. The Andhra Pradesh
0 Public Service Commission was consulted as is required in law
for its concurrence to impose the major punishment of dismissal
from service on the respondent to which the Commission
expressed its concurrence. The Government in exercise of the
powers conferred by clause (x) of Rule ·9 of the saio Rules
E accordingly passed the orders in G.O.Ms. No. 58 TR&B(S.1.3)
dated 17.04.2001 inflicting punishment of dismissal from

.
service as against the respondent.

5. The respondent challenged the said order of dismissal
+ -~.
F before the AP. Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its
judgment dated 28.06.2002; upheld the order of dismissal
passed by the Government against the respondent and
accordingly dismissed the appeal filed by him. Aggrieved by
the said order, the respondent filed Writ petition No.2121/03
G in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The High Court vide. i.ts
impugned judgment quashed the o-rders of the
AP.Administrative Tribunal and accordingly set aside the order
of dismissal passed against the respondent. Hence this appeal
by the Government of Andhra Prade~h.

H
GOVERNMENT OF AP. & ANR. v. N. RAMANAIAH 761
[B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
,4
6. We have elaborately heard the learned senior counsel A
1
appearing for both the parties and perused the impugned order
and the material available on record. The High Court allowed
the Writ Petition only on the ground that the impugned order of
dismissal has been passed by the State Government imposing
the major punishment of dismissal from service depriving the B
employee of his right of appeal provided under the said Rules
framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India which
regulates the service conditions of the Government employees.
The High Court concluded that a valuable right of appeal has
been denied to the respondent delinquent since the appellate c
authority itself has passed the impugned order of dismissal
instead of appointing authority prescribed under the Rules.

7. Shri R.Sundaravardhan, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned order
of the High Court suffers from incurable infirmities requiring the D
-~ interference of this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India. It was submitted the
order of dismissal passed by the Government in exercise of
its power under clause (x) of Rule 9 of the said Rules does not
suffer from any infirmity. The submission was the order passed E
by the Government does not suffer from any jurisdictional error
and the question of depriving the respondent of his right to
prefer an appeal does not arise since there is no appeal
,.1- provided against the order passed by the Government. It was
further submitted that there is a right of review provided under F
the Rules to an aggrieved employee which was not availed of
by the. respondent.

8. Shri P.S. Narasimha, learned senior counsel appearing
for the respondent submitted that a public servant cannot be
G
deprived of his substantive right of appeal. The submission was
when an appeal is provided to the Government against the
order of the disciplinary authority and the Government passes
an order of punishment, the employee concerned is deprived
of the remedy of appeal which is substantive right given to him
H
762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R.

A under the Rules. It was submitted that the issue really becomes
relevant particularly where there is a provision for appeal
against the order of disciplinary authority to the higher authority
and where there is no appeal provided against the order of
higher authority. It was submitted that a reasonable opportunity
B to be afforded to a Government servant means and includes
right of appeal whenever provided by law and deprivation of
such a right to prefer appeal against the order of appointing
authority dismissing the public servant from service amounts
to denial of reason-~ble opportunity guaranteed under Article
c 311 (2) of the Constitution.

9. The only question that falls for our consideration in the
instant appeal is whether the impugned order of dismissal
passed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh suffers from any
illegality on the ground that it had deprived the respondent of
D his valuable right to prefer an appeal had it been passed by
the disciplinary authority which is subordinate to the
Government. The real point in issue is whether the impugned
order of the Government dismissing the respondent from
service suffers from any jurisdictional error?
E
10. The elaborate provisions in Part XIV relating to
services under the Union and the States indicate the importance
which the framers of our Constitution attached to the Civil
Service. The trinity of Articles 309, 310 and 311 deal with the
F services regulating recruitment, and conditions of service of
persons appointed to public services and posts in connection
with the affairs of the Union or any of the State. Every person
who is a member of civil service of a State or holds any .civil
post under a State holds office during the pleasure of the
G Governor. Article 311 (2) qualifies the pleasure of the President
or the Governor, and the pleasure cannot be exercised if a
Government servant's service is to be terminated as a
punishment for misconduct. In such a case, Article 311 (2)
mandates that a reasonable opportunity of being heard in
respect of the charges must be given to the Government
H
GOVERNMENT OF AP. & ANR. v. N. RAMANAIAH 763
[B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
~ ·-+
servant. Any order inflicting the punishment of dismissal, A
......... removal without giving the opportunities as is required by Article
311 (2) would be null and void as violative of an express
constitutional requirement. One more aspect that may have to
be borne in mind that Article 311 (1) does not command that
the dismissal must be by the very same authority who made B
the appointment or by its direct superior. The dismissal can be
~ I
either by the appointing authority or by any other authority to
which the appointing authority is subordinate. The dismissal of
a civil servant must comply with the procedure laid down in
Article 311. c
In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article
309 of the Constitution of India, the Government of Andhra
Pradesh made the Rules known as A.P. Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1963. These Rules
prescribe the detailed procedure for holding a departmental D
:A enquiry in all cases where the dismissal, removal or reduction
in rank of any government servant was to be considered. These
rules are required to be read so as to be in conformity with the,
constitutional provisions. We shall now proceed to analyse the
rules in order to appreciate the submissions made by both the E
parties.

11. Rule 2 (a) of the Rules defines appointing authority in
"' ,.-{ relation to a Government servant as the authority which actually
made the temporary or officiating or substantive appointment F
as the case may be, of the Government servant to the post held
by him at the time of initiation of disciplinary proceedings; or
the authority which is, under the rules regulating the recruitment
to the post which the Government servant for the time being
holds, competent to make an appointment, whichever authority
>: G
is higher. There is no dispute before us the appointing auth<;>rity
in relation to the post that was held by the respondent delinquent
employee is the Engineer-in-chief and he is also the disciplinary
authority. For the purposes of Rules the 'disciplinary authority'
is defined in Rule 2 (c) of the Rules as the authority competent
H
~

~

'
764 SUPRe-ME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R. ,'..
+·1 '>
A under the Rules to impose on a Government servant any of the
penalties under Rule 9 or Rule 10 of the Rules. Rule 9 in its
turn provides that for good and sufficient reasons arid as further
provided in the Rules; major penalties be imposed on a
Government servant including dismissal from service which shall
B ordinarily be a disqualification for future ~mployment under the
Government. Rule 9 itself does not make any provision as to '
which authority is authorised to impose the penalties. It is Rule
x •
14 which provides further details of the disciplinary authorities
and autho(itie-s competent to impose the penalties, in respect
c of Subordinate Services. Rule 14 which is relevant for our
~
present purposes provides: t'
'
l

"Rule 14. Disciplinary Authorities and Authorities ,.6
competent to suspend, in respect of Subordinate Services

D
(1) (a) ;k
(b) - - - - -

(2) The authority which may impose on a member of a I-

Subordinate Service, the penalties specified in [clauses
E
(ii) and (v) to (x)} of Rule 9 shall be the appointing authority ~

or any authority to which it is subordinate."

A plain reading of the Rules aforementioned clearly } r-
i ..J._
suggests the disciplinary authority endowed with the jurisdiction 1,,_
F to impose on a member of subordinate service, the penalties I
i
specified in clause (ii) and (v) to (ix) of Rule 9 includes not only
the appointing authority but any authority to which the appointing
authority is subordinate. The power is concurrently conferred
upon the appointing authority and as well as the authority to
G which the appointing authority is subordinate. There is no ·~
dispute that Engineer-in-chief being the appointing authority in
respect of the post that was held by the respondent delinquent
at the time of initiation of disciplinary enquiry is undoubtedly
subordinate to the Government. In such view of the matter it
H cannot be said that the Government had no jurisdiction or the
.
GOVERNMENT OF AP. & ANR. v. N. RAMANAIAH 765
[B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
µ
_authority under the Rules to impose a major penalty on a A
member of subordinate service. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 clearly
enables not only the appointing authority but any authority to
which the appointing authority is subordinate to impose
penalties including the dismissal of Government servant from
service. There is no provision in the Rules which prohibits the B
Government exercising the power of appointing authority in the
I ..;.
matter of imposition of the penalties specified in clauses (ii)
and (v) to (ix) of Rule 9 which includes dismissal from service.
The Constitution being the transcendental law, the rule making
authority by making Rule 14 (2) took care to see that c
constitutional guarantee enshrined in Article 311 (1) of the
Constitution which was available to the Government servant
was protected. That the construction placed by us on the
expression 'subordinate' is in consonance with the meaning
and import of the word 'subordinate' occurring in Article 311 D
(1) of the Constitution is apparent from many a decisions of this
Court. We shall refer to some of them. In our considered opinion
there is nothing in the Constitution which debars the Government
from exercising the powers of appointing authority to dismiss
a Government servant from service. These Rules cannot be
E
read as implying that dismissal must be by the very authority
who made the appointment or by his immediate superior. In
Sampuran Singh Vs. Sate of Punjab [(1982) 3 SCC 200], this
-{
~ Court observed that "in view of Article 311 (1) of the Constitution
the removing authority cannot be subordinate in rank to the
appointing authority. By necessary implication the removing F
authority may be higher in rank to the appointing authority"
(emphasis supplied). There is a compliance with clause (1) of
Article 311 if the dismissing authority is not lower in rank or
grade than the appointing authority. [See The State of U.P. &
~ ors. vs. Ram Naresh Lal (1970 (3) SCC 173) and Jai Jai Ram G
and Ors. vs. UP. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow
and ors. (1996 (4) sec 727].

12. The decision in K. C. Chandrasekharan s/o K. C.
Chamu vs. State of Kera/a [AIR (1964) Kerala 87] supports H
766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R. .,
'
'
......
A the submission made by the learned senior counsel for the
appellant that the mere fact that the Rules provided for an
appeal to Government in case the Government servant is
punished by an authority subordinate to it does not mean that
,---
the Government cannot itself undertake the disciplinary ...
B proceedings against its officers. In that case the Government
having received reports that the appellant therein, while he was
Special Forest Officer, received illegal gratification and helped
),. '\
illicit transport of timber from the forest areas, conducted a
preliminary investigation which disclosed a prinia facie case,
c placed the public servant under suspension, framed specific
charges against him, served them on him, and finding his
explanation thereto unsatisfactory, ordered an enquiry by the
Enq!Jiry Officer, who submitted his report to Government finding
corruption on the part of the public servant and recommending
.his removal from service. Government then consulted the Public
D
Service Commission and having considered the explanation of
the public servant passed orders dismissing him from service. :""
The said order was challenged by the public servant therein on ~

the ground that under Kerala Civil Services (Classification,
E -Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, the Inquiry authority should ......

have submitted its report to the appointing authority, who, in this
case, was the Conservator of Forest, 1in which case the public
servant would have had a right of appeal to Government from
the penalty that might have been imposed on him by the -'>-
appointing authority. The contention was that he was deprived •
F of right of appeal and that amounted to denial of reasonable
opportunity guaranteed under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution.
The Kerala High Court held :

"5. The constitutional guarantee a Government servant is
G entitled to is one of being afforded a reasonable
~
opportunity of the above content in an enquiry under the
\.
Civil Services (Classification, control and Appeal) Rules.
The complaint here is not that the appellant was not
afforded any of the three opportunities mentioned above,
tl'
but that he had been deprived of the right of appeal to the
H
,
r-
· GOVERNMENT OF A.P. & ANR. v. N. RAMANAIAH 767
[B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
~- .....
Government from the order of the appointing authority if it A
had imposed the penalty on him by the Government having
received the report of the Inquiring Authority and passed
orders thereoh. Whether opportunity afforded to a
Government servant in a particular case is reasonable will
depend upon the circumstances of each case, me enquiry B
In this case was held by the Enquiry commissioner and
Special Judge, who was a Judge of the High court of
I ~
Travancore~Cochin mere is no complaint that the appellant
had not been given opportunity to participate in the
.... proceeding and vindicate his innocence we do not think c
that a right of appeal is a necessary postulate of an
opportunity of showing cause within the meaning of Article
311 (2) of the Constitution, and do not the any force in the
plea that the appellant was deprived of the constitutional
protection of that Article because me Government, who is
D
appellate authority, itself scrutinised the report of the
Inquiring Authority, consulted the Public Service
Commission and imposed the punishment on him. The
fact that the Kerala Civil services (Classification, Control
and Appeal) Rules, 1957, provided for as appeal to
Government in case the Government servant had been E
punished by an authority subordinate to it are not mean that
the Government could, not itself undertake the disciplinary
-'. proceedings against its offices, to fact, Rule 13 of the
Kerala Civil services (Classification Control and Appeal)
Rules provided that the authority which might impose the F
penalty of dismissal from the civil service on a member of
a subordinate service was the appointing authority or any
higher authority, which LATIER must necessarily include
the Government. Under Rule 17 (2) the authority
concerned, that is to say, either the appointing authority or G
~
any higher authority could direct an enquiry to be held by
a special officer or tribunal appointed by the Government
for the purpose or any other person mentioned, in Sub-rule
(3). Rule 17 (5) provided that the report of the Inquiring
H
768 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 9 S.C.R. ~·

.lo..·-j
A Authority should be forwarded to the appointing authority,
who should proceed to impose the appropriate penalty on
the delinquent officer. There was a lacuna in the rules as
to whom the report was to be submitted in case the
Government Itself had undertaken the disciplinary
B proceedings and ordered enquiry into the charges transfer
against the officer. As the enquiry had been ordered by
the Government, the report of the Inquiring Authority should
be submitted to the Government itself. The operation of -""
Rule 17 (5) could therefore be confined only to cases
c where the appointing authority was to imposed the penalty
as the sub~rule itself indicated. We do not see any
impropriety, much less any illegality, in the Government
itself having received the report of findings by the Enquiry
Commissioner and Special judge and imposed the
penalty on the appellant in this case. As THE proceedings
D
snow that reasonable opportunity to prove his innocence
had been afforded to the appellant before the lnq·uiring
Authority and to show cause against me proposed ""
imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service before
the Government, no violation of the guarantee or
E reasonable opportunity provided in Article 311 (2) or the
Constitution had occurred in the impugned proceedings·.

We approve the said reasoning of the Kerala High Court.
>- ~
F 13. In the State of Madras vs. G.Sundaram [AIR 1965 SC
1103), a Constitution Bench of this court while interpreting the
provisions of the Madras District Police Act, 1859 and the
Madras Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1950, rejected the contention of the employee therein
that an order of compulsory retirement amounts to an order of
G
dismissal which could be passed only by one of the officers -.....
specified in Section 10 of the Police Act and not by the State
Government which is not given any power to pass such order.
This Court observed :

H
GOVERNMENT OF AP. & ANR. v. N. RAMANAIAH 769
[B. SUDERS HAN REDDY, J .]
r. --4
"12. - - - -If the order of compulsory retirement amounts, in A
the circumstances of this case, to an order of dismissal,
the Constitutional requirement of Article 311 that the
respondent could not have been dismissed from service
by an authority subordinate to that by which he was
appointed has been satisfied. The respondent must have B
been appointed to the Police Service in 1929 by an
t ~
authority subordinate to the State Government and,
therefore, the State Government was competent to dismiss
him.

13. The Police Rules were framed by the State
c
Government in exercise of the powers conferred by
Section 10 of the Police Act and by certain other
provisions including the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution. Rule 2 of the Police Rules mentions the
various penalties which can be imposed among the D
A members of the service and mentions 'compulsory ·
retirement' in Clause (g) as one such penalty. Rule 4
specifies the authority which may impose any of the
penalties prescribed in Rule 2 on a member of the service
specified in column 1 of the Schedule to the Rules and E
states that it shall be the authority specified in the
corresponding entry under columns 2 to 8, therefore,
.... whichever is relevant or any higher authority. According to
t
the entry in the Schedule, the authority competent to order
compulsory retirement, removal or dismissal of an F
Inspector of Police in the districts, is the Deputy Inspector-
General of Police. The State Government is an authority
higher than the Deputy Inspector-General of Police. This
cannot be gainsaid. It is, however, urged for the
. ~
respondent that the higher authority contemplated by G
Rule 4 is the authority higher in rank according to the
provisions of the Police Act and that such an authority
could be only the Inspector-General of Police. We do not
agree with this contention.
H
770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 $.C.R.
~-1

A 14. The State Government can pass the various orders of
punishment dealt with in the schedule and this is clear from
Rule 5 which describes the forum to which a member of
the Service can appeal from an order imposing any of the
penalties specified in Rule 2. According to Clause (c), an
B appeal lies to the Governor if such an order imposing a
penalty specified in Rule 2 is passed by the State
Government. We, therefore, agree with the High Court that
~ 1
the State Government was competent to order the
compulsory retirement of the appellant. "
c (emphasis supplied)

14. In the present case Rule 33 of the Rules provides right
of appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties
specified in Rule 9 or Rule 10 whether made by the disciplinary
D authority or by an appellate authority or revising authority to the
appellate authorities. Rule 34 specifies the appellate ~
authorities. There is no difficulty to hold that had the appointing
authority, who, in this case was the Engineer-in-chief pa~sed
the order of penalty the respondent would have had a right of
E appeal to the Government. Rule 32 of the Rules says that
notwithstanding anything contained therein no appeal shall lie
against any order made by the Governor; in the present case
the impugned order of dismissal was made by the Government
~
in the name of Governor, therefore there is no right of appeal -f

F as such against the impugned order of dismissal made by the
Government. It is well said and needs no restatement at our
hands that a right of appeal no doubt is a substantive one but
not inherent or fundamental right. No appeal lies to the higher
authority as a matter of right unless provided for by the law.
G It is not as if there is no remedy available against the order ~

passed by the Government dismissing a Government servant
from its service. Rule 38 of the said Rules confers on every
member of State Service, or a member of Subordinate Service
in whos~ case the Government have passed original orders,
H
GOVERNMENT OF A.P. & ANR. v. N. RAMANAIAH 771
(8. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
• - .>(.
shall not be entitled to appeal but shall be entitled to make A
separately and in his own name, within a period of three months
from the date on which the order was communicated to him, a
petition to the Government for review of the order passed by
the Government on any of the following grounds namely :
8
(i) that the order against which the petition of review
is made was not passed by the competent
t. -J.. authority;

(ii) that a reasonable opportunity was not given to the
petitioner for defending himself; c
(iii) that the punishment is excessive or unjust;

(iv) that the petitioner has made a discovery of new
matter or evidence which he proves to the
D
satisfaction of the Government, was not within his
;),._ knowledge or could not be adduced by him before
the order imposing the penalty was passed; and

(v) that there is an evidence error or omission in the
order such as failure to apply the law of limitation E
or an error of procedure apparent on the fact of
record."

~ * The power conferred upon the Government to review its
own order is very wide and that a substantive right of review
F
has been conferred on every member of a State Service or a
member of Subordinate Service against the orders passed by
the Government. In the present case the respondent failed to
avail the remedy provided for under Rule 38.

15. Shri P .Narsimha, learned senior counsel appearing for -G
the respondent relying upon the decision of this court in Surjit
Ghosh vs. Chairman and Managing Director, UCO Bank and
ors. [ (1995) 2 sec 474] contended that the respondent
employee was denied a right of appeal, since the order of
dismissal against him was passed by the Government though H
772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R.

A the disciplinary authority was Engineer-in-chief. The submission
was as per the said Rules, the disciplinary authority was
Engineer-in-chief and if the action was taken by him, the
employee had an opportunity to appeal to the Government. In
order to appreciate this contention it is required to notice that
s in the said case the undisputed facts were the disciplinary
action against the bank employee therein was taken by the
Deputy General Manager. In terms of the regulations, the
disciplinary authority of officers in Grade E,D,C and B was the
Divisional Manager/Assistant General Manager(Personnel) and
c the appeal against their order was to the DGM or any other
officer of the same rank. This court took the view that if the
action was taken by the disciplinary authority, he had an
opportunity to appeal to the DGM or any other officer of the
same rank. However, since the action was taken by DGM
although the Divisional Manager and AGM (Personnel) were
0
available for taking the action the employee was denied the right
of an appeal and also the right of review which lay only against
the 'appellate order. This court took the view that the order
passe,d by the bank suffered from an inherent defect. Having
said so the Court proceeded to observe that it is true that an
E authority higher than the disciplinary authority itself imposes the
punishment, the order of punishment suffers from no illegality
when no appeal is provided to such authority. It is further held:

" 6. - - - However, when an appeal is provided to the higher
F authority concerned against the order of the disciplinary
authority or of a lower authority and the higher authority
pasc;es an order of punishment, the employee concerned
is deprived of the remedy of appeal which is a substantive
right given to him by the Rules/Regulations. An employee
G cannot be deprived of his substantive right. What is further,
when there is a provision of appeal against the order of ,
the disciplinary authority and when the appellate or the
higher authority against whose order there is no appeal,
exercises the powers of the disciplinary authority in a given
H case, it results in discrimination against the employee
GOVERNMENT OF AP. & ANR. v. N. RAMANAIAH 773
(8. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]

concerned. This is particularly so when there are no A
guidelines in the Rules/Regulations as to when the higher
authority or the appellate authority should exercise the
power of the disciplinary authority. The higher or appellate
authority may choose to exercise the power of the
disciplinary authority in some cases while no doing so in B
other cases. In such cases, the right of the employee
depends upon the choice of the higher/appellate authority
which patently results in discrimination between an
employee and employee. Surely, such a situation cannot
savour of legality." c
The said decision was apparently one where the power
to impose the punishment wa,s not concurrently conferred upon
both the disciplinary authority, viz., the Divisional Manager/AGM
(Personnel) and the Deputy General Manager under the
regulations. The said decision is therefore clearly D
distinguishable.

'16, In the case on hand the Rules clearly empower not only
the disciplinary authority but as well as the Government to
impose appropriate punishment as against delinquent public E
serv~nt for proven charges of misconduct. In our opinion the
judgment is not relevant and in no manner supports the point
urged by the learned senior counsel for the respondent.

17. It was further submitted that there are no guidelines in
F
the Rules as to when the Government should exercise the
powers of disciplinary authority. The submission was the
Government may choose to exercise the power of the
disciplinary authority in some cases while not doing so in other
cases eventuality resulting in the right of the Government
servant dependant upon the choice of the Government which G
patently results in discrimination between one set up
Government servant and another. This contention does not
merit any serious examination by us since the constitutional
validity of Rule 14 (2) which enables the Government to award
H
774 SUPREME COURf REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R.

)o...--i
A punishment apart from the disciplinary authority is not
challenged.

18. The decision in A. Sudhakar vs. Post Master General,
General and anr. [(2006) 4 sec 348] in no manner supports
the contention urged on behalf of the respondent. On the other
B
hand this court took the view that clause (1) of Article 311 of
the Constitution puts an embargo upon passing an order of
dismissal, removal or reduction of rank in services by an ...).. ~

a_uthority below the rank of appointing authority. "There does not
appear to be an embargo in terms of the said provision that a
c higher authority would not act as a disciplinary authority." The
decision in Electronics Corporation of India vs. G. Muralidhar
[ (2001) 10 SCC 43 ] is based on the decision in Surjit Ghosh's
case (supra) about which we have dealt with in the preceding ·'
paragraphs. No further discussion as regards the ratio of the
D decision in Electronics Corporation of India (supra) is
· necessary for the purposes of d'.sposal of this appeal.
A
19. It is evident from the record that no other substantial
grounds have been raised or urged by the respondent
E employee either in the Tribunal or in the High Court challenging
the order of his dismissal from service. Nothing was urged even
before us on merits. The High Court, mainly, therefore
concentrated on the question as regards the validity of the
impugned order of dismissal passed by the Government with k-
1 ._
f/ which we have dealt in this judgment of ours. Therefore no useful
purpose would be served by remitting the matter for fresh
consideration on merits.

20. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find it difficult to
sustain the order passed by the High Court interfering with the
G order of dismissal passed by the Government. The judgment
of the High Court is accordingly set aside. ~"'
....
21. The appeal is allowed without any order as to costs.

R.P Appeal allowed.
H ....