Appeal No 301 of 1961
Appeal from the judgment and order dated March 10 1960 of the Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench in Special Appeal No 40 of 1959
K section Hajela and C P Lal for the appellant
K L Gosain and Naunit Lal for the respondent
March 4
The short point of law which arises in this appeal relates to the construction of Rule 4 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Disciplinary Proceedings Administrative Tribunal Rules 1947 hereinafter called the Rules
That question arises in this way
The respondent Jogendra Singh was appointed a Naib Tehsildar under the appellant the State of U P in the year 1937
On August 4 1952 he was suspended as complaints had been received against him and an enquiry into the said complaints was contemplated
Accordingly charges were framed against him and his case was referred for investigation to the Administrative Tribunal appointed under the Rules
The Tribunal held an enquiry and exonerated the respondent from the charges framed against him in August 1953
While the proceedings before the Tribunal were pending additional complaints were received by the 199 appellant against the respondent s conduct and they were communicated by the appellant to the Tribunal with an intimation that the appellant proposed to send those further charges against the respondent for enquiry
The Tribunal did not wait for receipt of the said additional charges because it was asked by the government to proceed with the charge already with it and concluded its enquiry
That is why on October 28 1955 the respondent was again suspended and charges framed on the additional complaints received against him were delivered to him on October 29 1956
On November 12 1956 the respondent submitted his explanation and pleaded that in case the appellant wanted to pursue the enquiry against him it might be entrusted to the Administrative Tribunal in accordance with the Rules
On June 28 1958 the Deputy Secretary Board of Revenue U P informed the respondent that in accordance with the orders passed by the appellant his case had been entrusted to the Commissioner Gorakhpur Division with directions to take disciplinary proceedings against him and his request that the charges against him should be entrusted for investigation to the Administrative Tribunal had been rejected
Thereupon the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of judicature at Allahabad on July 14 1958 and prayed that a writ or a direction or an appropriate order should be passed against the appellant quashing the proceedings intended to be taken against him before the enquiring officer appointed by the appellant under Rule 55 of the Civil Services classification Control and Appeal Rules
The learned single judge who heard the writ petition held that the respondent being a gazetted officer the appellant was bound to grant his request that the enquiry against him should be 200 held by the Administrative Tribunal appointed Under the Rules
That is why the writ petition was allowed and the order directing the enquiry to be held by the appointed authority under Rule 55 of the said Civil Services Rules was quashed
This order was challenged by the appellant by an appeal under the Letters Patent before a Division Bench of the said High Court
The Division Bench agreed with the view taken by the learned single judge and dismissed the appeal
The appellant then applied for and obtained a certificate from the said High Court and it is with the said certificate that it has come to this Court
Mr Hajela for the appellant contends that the conclusion reached by the Courts below is not supported on a fair and reasonable construction of Rule 4 2 of the Rules
The appellant s case is that in the State of U P it is competent to the Governor to direct that disciplinary proceedings against the officers specified in Rule 4 of the Rules should be tried before an Administrative officer but there is no obligation on the Governor in that behalf
The Governor may if he so decides direct that the said enquiry may be held under Rule 55 of the Civil Services Rules and conducted by an appropriate authority appointed in that behalf
Whether the enquiry should be held by the Administrative Tribunal or by an appropriate authority is a matter entirely within the discretion of the Governor
On the other hand the High Court has held that so far as cases of gazetted government servants arc concerned they are covered by Rule 4 2 of the Rules and on a fair construction of the said Rule it is clear that if  gazetted government servant requests that the enquiry against him should be held by the Administrative Tribunal the Governor is bound to grant his request
So the narrow point which arises 201 for our decision is which of the two views can be said to represent correctly the effect of Rule 4 2 of the Rules
Rule 4 reads as follows 4
1 The Governor may refer to the tribunal cases relating to an individual government servant or class of government servants or government servants in a particular area only in respect of matters involving  a corruption b failure to discharge duties properly 
c irremediable general inefficiency in a public servant of more than ten years  standing and d personal immorality
2 The Governor may in respect of a gazetted government servant on his own request refer his case to the Tribunal in respect of matters referred to in sub rule 1
 It would be noticed that Rule 4 1 confers discretion on the Governor to refer to the Tribunal cases failing under clauses a to d in respect of servants specified by the first part of sub rule 1
In regard to these cases the government servant concerned cannot claim that the enquiry against him should not be held by a Tribunal and the matter falls to be decided solely in the discretion of the Governor
It is also clear that amongst the classes of servants to whom sub rule 1 applies gazetted government servants are included so that if Rule 4 1 had stood by itself even gazetted government servants would have no right to claim that the enquiry against them should not be held by a Tribunal
202 It is in the light of this provision that rule 4 2 has to be considered
Rule 4 2 deals with the class of gazetted government servants and gives them the right to make a request to the Governor that their cases should be  referred to the Tribunal in respect of matters specified in clauses a to d of sub rule 1
The question for our decision is whether like the word  may in rule 4 1 which confers the discretion on the Governor the word may in subrule 2 confers discretion on him or does the word may in sub rule 2 really mean shall or  must  There is no doubt that the word  may generally does not mean must or shall
But it is well settled that the word may is capable of meaning must or  shall in the light of the context
It is also clear that where a discretion is conferred upon a public authority coupled with an obligation the word may which denotes discretion should be construed to mean a command
Sometimes the legislature uses the word may out of deference to the high status of the authority on whom the power and the obligation are intended to be conferred and imposed
In the present case it is the context which is decisive
The whole purpose of rule 4 2 would be frustrated if the word may in the said rule receives the same construction as in sub rule 1
It is because in regard to gazetted government servants the discretion had already been given to the Governor to refer their cases to the tribunal that the rule making authority wanted to make a special provision in respect of them as distinguished from other government servants falling under rule 4 1 and rule 4 2 has been prescribed otherwise rule 4 2 would be wholly redundant
In other words the plain and unambiguous object of enacting rule 4 2 is to provide an option to the gazetted government servants to request the Governor that their cases should be tried by a Tribunal and 203 not otherwise
The rule making authority presumably thought that having regard to the status of the gazetted government servants it would be legitimate to give such an opinion to them
Therefore we feel no difficulty in accepting the view taken by the High Court that rule 42 imposes an obligation on the Governor to grant a request made by the gazetted government servant that  his case should be referred to the Tribunal under the Rules
Such a request was admittedly made by the respondent and has not been granted
Therefore we are satisfied that the High Court was right in quashing the proceedings proposed to be taken by the appellant against the respondent otherwise than by referring his case to the Tribunal under the Rules
The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The respondent was appointed a Naib Tehsildar under the appellant in the year 1937
On August 4 1952 he was suspended on complaints received against him and his case was referred for investigation to the Administrative Tribunal appointed under the Rules
While the proceedings were pending additional complaints were received by the appellant against his conduct and they were communicated to the Tribunal with an intimation that the appellant proposed to send those further charges against the respondent for enquiry
The Tribunal did not wait for receipt of the said additional charges and on enquiry exonerated him from the charges framed against him in August 1952
On October 28 1956 the respondent was again suspended and the charges framed on the additional complaints were delivered to him
The respondent submitted his explanation and pleaded that the enquiry might be entrusted to the Administrative Tribunal in accordance with the Rules but his request was rejected and the case was entrusted to the Commissioner with directions to take disciplinary proceeding  against him
The High Court allowed the writ petition of the respondent and the order directing the enquiry to be held by the appointed authority under r 55 of the said Civil Services Rules was quashed
The question for decision in this Court was whether like the word may in r 4 1 which confers the discretion on the Governor the word may in sub r
2 confers discretion on him or does the word may in sub r2 really mean shall or must
Held that the whole purpose of r 4 2 would be frustrated if the word may in the said rule receives the same construction as in sub r
The plain and unambiguous object of enacting rule 4 2 is to provide an option to the 198 
Gazetted Government servants to request the Governor that their cases should be tried by a Tribunal and not otherwise
Thus r 4 2 imposes an obligation on the Governor to grant a request made by the Gazetted Government Servant and such a request not having been granted in the present case the appeal must fail