ID- 21012066
NAME : LAVANYA YADAV
Shamsher Singh. Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab. Respondent
FACTS
In this case, the two appellants were probationary members of the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch). According to various sections of pertinent regulations, the concerned Ministers’ and Chief Minister’s orders terminated both of their probation in accordance with the High Court’s (HC’s) recommendations.
The Governor of Punjab unilaterally issued the termination orders in his own name, without seeking his input or obtaining his agreement.
The appellants contended that, as the official head of state and head of the state constitution, only the Governor has the power to select and remove Subordinate Judicial Service members.
ISSUE
Does the Governor possess the authority to appoint and dismiss individuals serving in the Subordinate Judicial Services?
RULE 1
Article 163: Advisory Council of Ministers to the Governor:
1) The Chief Minister must be supported and advised by a Council of Ministers in carrying out his duties. The Governor will only take on the obligations assigned to him by the Constitution.
2) The Governor’s final decision is unquestionable, and the legitimacy of their actions should not be challenged solely based on whether they should or should not have pursued a particular course of action. If any inquiry arises concerning a topic in which the Governor is required to exercise his discretionary powers under the Constitution, the Governor’s decision in his discretion must be considered final.
3) There shall be no inquiry in any Court as to whether or what advice was provided to the Governor by Ministers.
Article 234: Only district judges can be appointed to the State’s judicial service by the Governor. The Governor must follow the rules he has established for this matter and consult with the State Public Service Commission (SPSC) and the HC with relevant territorial jurisdiction over a neighbouring State.
Article 235: This article explicitly eliminates any individual’s right to appeal as provided by the governing laws of their service, and authorizes the High Court to address matters pertaining to district courts or subordinate courts, including those related to postings, promotions, and granting leave to individuals belonging to the state judicial services, who hold positions lower than that of a district judge.
Article 311(2): Prior to an investigation, once the identified individuals have been notified of the charges against them and have been provided with a fair chance to address those allegations, none of them can be terminated, reduced in rank, or degraded. Furthermore, this clause will not be applicable. However, if a penalty is proposed to be imposed on the individual after the inquiry, the penalty can be imposed based on the evidence presented during the inquiry. The individual will not have the opportunity to provide input on the proposed penalty;
a) when an employee is let go, demoted, or otherwise treated differently because of actions that led to a criminal conviction.
b) When the person whose dismissal, removal, or rank reduction is authorised is convinced that it is not practically possible to conduct such an inquiry for a cause that must be documented in writing by that authority,
c) When the President or Governor, as applicable, determines that it is not necessary to conduct the inquiry in order to protect the state’s security.
ANALYSIS
The Governor and the President possess the executive authority of the central and state governments respectively. The state government’s actions carried out under Article 166(1) under the aegis of the governor are similar to the actions of the governor when exercising the administrative powers delegated to them by the state under Article 154(1). To execute the Union’s measures as authorized by Article 53(1), the Government acts on behalf of the President, as stipulated in Article 77(1). As stated in paragraphs 300 and 361, both the President and the Governor are immune from legal responsibility for the executive actions of the government, even if they are not directly involved in carrying out such duties.
When the Governor requires the aid of ministers to fulfill his responsibilities, he either establishes regulations to ensure the smooth operation of the State’s government or, as stated in Article 166(3) , delegates specific functions to the suitable Ministers. The Governor oversees the actions of the ministers in accordance with the aforementioned provision. The fundamental principle of a cabinet is that each Minister is held accountable for every decision made within their ministry, but certain decisions are delegated to civil officials. A public servant exercises authority on behalf of the government.
With the ministries’ help and advice, the governor, as the recognized head of state, has the power to appoint and remove people. Regardless of whether they play an executive or legislative function, the President and the Governor depend on the ministries for support and direction regarding the court’s decision in the ongoing case. In the event that the Governor decides to act independently, he will work with the Council of Ministers. Because it is an executive authority, the Governor should confer with and request advice from the Ministers before appointing or dismissing Subordinate Judicial Service members. The authority may decide not to look into a case if it thinks a probationary employee’s actions could result in their termination. However, if a probationer is under investigation, they may be eligible for protection if their services are terminated due to charges of crime or corruption, without completing the standards stated in Article 311(2).
The applicant alleges that the High Court failed to adhere to the constitutional responsibilities. According to Article 235, the Governor is obligated to adhere to the recommendations made by the High Court. District Judges were intended to be dispatched by the High Court to initiate an inquiry, but, this did not occur. The investigating officer presented the report on the alleged misbehavior. Consequently, it was in violation of Article 311. The court deemed the dismissal order to be unlawful, necessitating the relevant authorities to ascertain the appellant’s eligibility. The decision to override Ishwar Chand’s directive to terminate employees was taken.
CONCLUSION
Shamsher Singh, the appellant, had the position of a probationary junior judge. The Government of Punjab dismissed him from his position on behalf of the Governor of Punjab in a letter that did not include an explanation for the termination. Ishwar Chand Agarwal’s employment with the Government of Punjab was also terminated based on the High Court’s suggestion made in the name of the Governor. In this instance, the issue at hand was whether the Governor’s or President’s satisfaction, as mandated by the constitution, encompassed personal gratification. According to the Constitution, the president or governor’s contentment in the cabinet or their Council of Ministers is prioritized over personal satisfaction. According to constitutional law, the responsibility for carrying out the duties of the President and Governor and overseeing government affairs is with the Ministers, rather than the Head of State. Ministers have the option to using the terms “aid and advise.” Within the framework of our constitutional system’s cabinet, the ruling nullified the case of Sardari Lal v. Union of India and established that, except for Governors, individuals who assist in actions and provide advice do so with their own authority and are not bound by the President’s power to approve or disapprove such actions or decisions.