State of Uttar Pradesh v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava
Supreme Court of India, 20 September 1957, 5 judges, 1957 AIR 912, 1958 SCR 533
Consultation with the Public Service Commission under Article 320(3)(c) is not mandatory. Its omission or irregularity does not invalidate a disciplinary order or give the civil servant a cause of action when Article 311 has been complied with.
Facts
The respondent, an officer of the U. P. Education Service, was found in a departmental inquiry to have favoured books written by relatives and a publisher who had lent him money while serving on a Book Selection Committee. After two show-cause notices under Article 311(2), the State Government consulted the State Public Service Commission and reduced him in rank and compulsorily retired him. His more elaborate reply to the second notice had not been placed before the Commission. The Allahabad High Court quashed the reduction in rank, treating Article 320(3)(c) as mandatory, but refused his claim to full salary during suspension. Both sides appealed on certificates.
Questions before the Court
- Whether Article 320(3)(c), requiring consultation with the Public Service Commission on disciplinary matters, is mandatory.
- Whether non-compliance with Article 320(3)(c) invalidates a disciplinary order and gives the civil servant a cause of action when Article 311 has been complied with.
What the Court held
- Article 320(3)(c) is directory, not mandatory. The proviso to Article 320 lets the President or Governor make regulations excluding consultation in some cases, which shows the Constitution did not intend it to be mandatory. The Government cannot, however, simply ignore the Commission.
- The Commission's advice is not binding on the Government, so failure to consult it cannot nullify the final order.
- Article 320 is in the chapter on Public Service Commissions and governs the relation between Government and the Commission. It confers no right on a civil servant and is not a rider or proviso to Article 311.
- Since the respondent had a reasonable opportunity under Article 311, the irregularity in consultation gave him no cause of action under Article 226 or Article 32. The State's appeal was allowed and the respondent's appeal dismissed, with parties bearing their own costs.
Why it matters
The judgment settles that consultation with the Public Service Commission under Article 320(3)(c) is directory and creates no enforceable right for a civil servant. It separates the protection of Article 311 from the duties of the Commission, and it applies the test for whether a provision is mandatory or directory by looking at its nature, design and consequences rather than the word 'shall' alone.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“In view of these considerations, it must be held that the provisions of Art. 320(3)(c) are not mandatory and that non-compliance with those provisions does not afford a cause of action to the respondent in a court of law. It is not for this Court further to consider what other remedy, if any, the respondent has.”
“We have already indicated that Art. 320(3)(c) of the Constitution does not confer any rights on a public servant so that the absence of consultation or any irregularity in consultation, should not afford him a cause of action in a court of law, or entitle him to relief under the special powers of a High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution or of this Court under Art. 32. It is not a right which could be recognized and enforced by a writ.”
“In the absence of such a binding character, it is difficult to see how non-compliance with the provisions of Art. 320(3)(c) could have the effect of nullifying the final order passed by the Government.”
Provisions interpreted
Related judgments
Case and bench
- Parties
- State of U. P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava
- Case
- Civil Appeals Nos. 27 and 28 of 1955
- Decided
- 20 September 1957
- Bench
- Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P., Das, Sudhi Ranjan (CJ), Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama, Kapur, J.L., Sarkar, A.K.
- Opinions
- Unanimous. Judgment of the Court delivered by Sinha J.
Questions on this case
3 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.