State of U.P. vs. Z.U. Ansari: Supreme Court on Disciplinary Proceedings Against Retired Employees

The case of State of U.P. and Ors. vs. Z.U. Ansari revolved around the validity of disciplinary proceedings initiated against a retired government employee without the Governor’s explicit sanction. The primary question was whether a minister’s approval was sufficient to initiate such proceedings under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations, 1975.

The case was decided by a bench comprising Chief Justice T.S. Thakur and Justice V. Gopala Gowda, with differing opinions leading to a split verdict.

Background of the Case

The respondent, Z.U. Ansari, joined the Saharanpur Division of the Rural Engineering Department of Uttar Pradesh as a Junior Engineer in 1973. Over the years, he was promoted and eventually retired as an Assistant Engineer on September 30, 2008.

Following allegations of financial irregularities causing a pecuniary loss of Rs.13,23,964 to the State, the Rural Engineering Department initiated disciplinary proceedings against him. The proposal was sanctioned by the Minister in charge on January 7, 2011, and a charge-sheet was issued on June 27, 2011. However, the respondent challenged this action before the Allahabad High Court.

High Court’s Decision

• The Allahabad High Court quashed the disciplinary proceedings, ruling that under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations, 1975, the sanction for such proceedings must be granted by the Governor and not a minister.
• The High Court ruled that Article 166 (which allows executive functions to be delegated) and Article 309 (which deals with service regulations) operate in separate fields.
• The High Court held that since the Governor’s explicit sanction was missing, the proceedings were legally impermissible.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court’s ruling. The Supreme Court delivered a split judgment.

Chief Justice T.S. Thakur’s Opinion (Majority View)

• Justice Thakur overruled the High Court’s decision, holding that the Minister’s sanction was valid under Article 166 of the Constitution.
• He noted that Article 166(3) allows the Governor to frame rules for business transactions, and under the Uttar Pradesh Rules of Business, 1975, the power to approve disciplinary proceedings was delegated to the Minister.
• He cited previous rulings, including State of M.P. vs. Dr. Yashwant Trimbak, to affirm that an executive function like sanctioning disciplinary action could be exercised by the Minister.
• He ruled that the High Court erred in assuming that the Governor’s personal approval was required under Regulation 351-A.
• Thus, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision and allowed the appeal.

Justice V. Gopala Gowda’s Dissenting Opinion

• Justice Gowda disagreed, arguing that Regulation 351-A explicitly required the Governor’s sanction.
• He emphasized that the powers under Article 166(3) (executive delegation) and Article 309 (service rules) operate in different fields.
• Since Regulation 351-A was framed under Article 309, it was a statutory provision, meaning that the Governor’s sanction was a legislative requirement that could not be bypassed.
• He relied on precedents such as State of U.P. vs. Harihar Bhole Nath and State of U.P. vs. Krishna Pandey, where courts had ruled that Governor’s explicit approval was mandatory.
• He concluded that the Minister’s approval was insufficient, and thus, the High Court was correct in quashing the disciplinary proceedings.
• Therefore, he dismissed the appeal.

Final Outcome

Due to the conflicting opinions, the case was referred to a larger bench for final adjudication.

Key Takeaways

• The judgment highlights the distinction between executive and legislative powers in service matters.
• The majority view supports ministerial approval for initiating disciplinary proceedings against retired employees, while the dissenting opinion argues for Governor’s explicit sanction.
• The case serves as a precedent for future service disputes involving disciplinary action against retired government servants.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: State of U.P. and Or vs Z.U. Ansari Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 30-09-2016-1741883935828.pdf