Holding

In the absence of a notification designating the Subordinate Judicial Service as a Provincial Service under Rule 14, the appellant cannot invoke the right of appeal created by the Civil Services Rules, 1930.

Summary

The appellant, an Additional Subordinate Judge of the Bihar Judicial Service, was disciplined with censure, withholding of increments, and denial of promotion benefits. He challenged the order by filing a writ petition and also sought to appeal the punishment to the Governor under the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930. The Patna High Court held that no appeal lay to the State Government and dismissed the petition. On special leave, the Supreme Court examined whether the Subordinate Judicial Service was covered by the 1930 Rules, which would grant a right of appeal under Rule 57(5) read with Article 235 of the Constitution. The Court found no notification bringing the Subordinate Judicial Service within the definition of "Provincial Services" under Rule 14, and therefore the appellant could not rely on the appeal right. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a member of the Bihar Subordinate Judicial Service is governed by the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 and thus entitled to appeal to the Governor under Rule 57(5).
Whether Article 235 of the Constitution preserves a right of appeal for the appellant in the absence of such coverage.

Legislation cited

Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930s. Rule 14, s. Rule 18, s. Rule 49, s. Rule 56, s. Rule 57(5)
Constitution of Indias. Art. 235, s. Art. 309

Subjects

Civil Services RulesProvincial ServicesRight of appealJudicial ServiceArticle 235Disciplinary proceedingsNotification

Judgment

RANJIT PRASAD SINHA
v. A
STATE OF BIHAR & ANOTHER

JULY 16, !987

[R.S. PATHAK, CJ, RANGANATH MISRA AND B
K.N. SINGH, JJ.]

Ciiil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930-
Rules 14, 18 and 57(5 )-Read with Constitution of India-Art. 235-
Right of appeal against imposition of penalty-Whether accrues to a
member if a Prorincial Serrice in the absence of a notification 1sS11ed
under r. 18. C

Rule 14 of the Civil Services Rules, 1930 classifies Public Servic"'
in India into a number of categories and one such category is
constituted of the 'Provincial Services'; and. r. 18 thereof declares that
it shall consist of such services under the administrative control of the D
Local Government of a Governo(s Province as the Local Government
may from time to time declare, by notification in the local Official
Gazette, to be included in the Provincial Services of that Province. Rule
~9 specifies the penalties which could be imposed upon the members of
the Services specified in r. 14. Rule 56 read with sub-r. (5) of r. 57
confers on a person belonging to any of the classified services specified E
in r. 14 a right of appeal to the Governor against an order imposing any
of the penalties specified ii\ r. 49, which right is saved by Art. 235 of the
• Constitution.

The appellant, a member of the Bihar Judicial.Service, challenged
an order of punishment served on him inter alia on the ground that the F
appeal filed by him to the Governor against the order of punishment
should not have been withheld by the High Court but should have been
despatched to the State Government for consideration. The High Court
dismissed the writ petition holding that no appeal lay to the State
Government.
G
Dismissing the appeal,

HELD: In the absence of positive material providing that
the Subordinate Judicial Service can be regarded as having been
brought within the scope of the Civil Services Rules of 1930, it is not
open to the appellant to rely on the right of appeal created by those H
Rules. [525G]
523
524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 3.S.C.R.

A In this case, neither counsel was able to refer to any notifica-
tion designating the Subordinate Judicial Service, of which the
appellant was a member. as one of the Provincial Services specified in
r. 14. [525F-G]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3534
B of 1986. _.

From the Judgment and Order dated 17.2.1986 of the Patna High
Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6215 of 1985.

C
Govind Mukhoty, S.K. Bhattacharya and U.S. Prasad for the
Appellant.
-
Jaya Narain, R.P. Singh, B.P. Singh and Ranjit Kumar for the
Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court wa~delivered by
D
PATHAK, CJ. This appeal by Special Leave is directed against
the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Patna dismissing a Writ
Petition filed by the appellant.

The appellant is an Additional Subordinate Judge in the Bihar
E Judicial Service. Disciplinary proceedings were taken against him and
ended in an order imposing the punishment of censure, the withhold- •
ing of annual increments for two years, postponement of his case for
promotion for a like period and the denial of emoluments in excess of
the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension. The appellant
filed a Writ Petition in the High Court challenging the order of punish-
F ment on several grounds but did not succeed. He urged also that the
appeal filed by him to the Governor against the order of punishment
should not have been withheld by the High Court but should have
been despatched to the State Government for consideration. The High
Court held that no appeal lay to the State Government and therefore
rejected the plea.
G
On 16 September, 1986 this Court granted special leave to the
appellant confined to the question whether an appeal lay to the Gover-
nor against the order of the High Court. That is thP, sole question for
consideration before us.

H To support his claim to a right of appeal the appellant relies on
<-{.

\

i" R.P. SINHA v. STATE OF BIHAR [PATHAK, CJ.I 525
.....
the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal} Rules 1930. It A
is pointed out that these Civil Services Rules of 1930 have been kept in
force by the State Government by notification No. IIl/RI/101163-8051-
A dated 3 July, 1963 issued under the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution. The submission of the appellant is that the right of ap-
peal is saved by Article 235 of the Constitution. Article 235 of the
Constitution provides that the control over District Courts and Courts B
~
subordinate thereto, including the posting and promotion of, and the
grant of leave to, persons belonging to the judicial service of the State
--.. and holding any post inferior to the post of District Judge shall be
vested in the High Court but that nothing in that Article may be
_. construed as taking away from any such person any right of appeal
which he may have under the Jaw regulating the conditions of service.
c
)_ The question is whether the appellant is governed by the Civil
Services Rules of 1930, Rule 14 classifies the Public Services in India
into a number of categories, and one sue)! category is constituted of
the Provincial Services. Rule 18 declares that the Provincial Services
shall consist of such services under the administrative control of the D
-t Local Government of a Governor's Province as the Local Government
may from time to time declare, by notification in the local offical
Gazette, to be included in the Provincial Services of that Province.
Rule 49 specifies the penalties which could be imposed upon members
of the Services specified in Rule 14. Rule 56 confers a right of appeal
on a person belonging to any of the classified Services specified in Rule E

•
· 14 against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 49 .
Rule 57(5) provides:

- "A member of a Provincial Service ....... may appeal to
' the Governor from an order passed by the Local Govern-
ment". F

We enquired of learned counsel for the parties whether a Notification
had been issued designating the Subordinate Judicial Service, of which
the appellant is a member, as one of the Provincial Services specified
in Rule 14. Neither counsel was able to refer to any Notification in that
• )'behalf. In the absence of positive material providing that the Subordi- G
nate Judicial Service can be regarded as having been brought within
the swpe of the Civil Services Rules of 1930, it is not open to the
appellant to rely on the right of appeal created by those Rules.

Our attention has been drawn to the fact that the Civil Services
Rules of 1930 were continued with effect from 22 December 1956, by H
526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 3.S.C.R.

A Notification No. III/Rl/101/63-8051-A dated 3 July, 1963. That does
'
not advance the case of the appellant any further because the Notifica-
tion can take effect in respect of such Service only as has already been
brought within the scope of those Rules.

B Before leaving this case, we must give expression to our great
disappointment that neither party was able to indicate what were the ...
Rules which governed the Judicial Service to which the appellant be-
longed. If no Notification was issued applying the Civil Service Rules
of 1930 to such Judicial Service, there must surely be some other body
of Rules which does apply. And if there is none, it is time that such
body of Rules was framed. The present regrettable state of confusion
C must be ended. It would certainly be a matter of gratification for the
Judicial officers of the State of Bihar to know where they stand.

In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed but in the circum-
stances we make no orders as to costs.
D A.P.J. ' Appeal dismissed.