Case: Gian Singh Vs. The State Of Punjab


Decision reasoning: 0[ds]the authority of the Financial Commissioner under the rules which remained in force by virtue of cl. 9 was exercisable except as provided by the Adaptation of Indian Laws Order, 1937. By S. 241 (2) of the Government of India Act, 1935, the conditions of service, in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province, were to be such as may be prescribed by rules made by the Governor, or by persons authorised to make rules for that purpose. But this provision was, till other provisions were made, subject to cl. 15 (2) of the Commencement and Transitory Provisions Order, 1936. Clause 7 of the Adaptation of Indian Laws Order on which reliance was placed by counsel for the appellant in support of his contention that the Governor alone could exercise the powers of dismissal under the Rules because he was the corresponding authority, does not also assist the appellant. The clause applies only to those cases where an authority competent at the date of passing of any Indian law, to exercise any powers or authorities or discharge any functions, ceased to exist and a corresponding new authority was constituted by or under any Part of the Government of India Act, 1935 the clause did not apply where only the powers of an authority were vested in another authority, the former authority not otherwise ceasing to function. The conditions of service of civil servants having remained unaltered even after the Government of India Act, 1935 was brought into operation by virtue of the Commencement and Transitory Provisions Order, 1936, and the Adaptation of Indian Laws Order having made express provision saving the rules as well as the authority granted under the rules to the Financial Commissioner, the order of the Financial Commissioner dismissing the appellant from service was notis however unnecessary to consider whether under the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1941 the Governor alone was competent to dismiss from service a public servant of the Provincial Service or Subordinate Service or officers holding special posts or any other Government servant or class of Government servants to whom those rules applied. It was expressly enacted in R. 1.4 that the Civil Services Rules were not to apply to any person for whose appointment and conditions of service special provision was made by or under any law for the time being in force. Special provision did in fact exist for the appointments and condition of service of Tehsildars under the law for the time being in force and those rules are not shown to have been superseded or abrogated by the Civil Services Rules. Counsel for the appellant asserted that Tehsildars belonged to the Subordinate Services, Class III and the rules framed in 1941 under S. 241 of the Government of India Act superseded the Tehsildari Rules of 1932. The Advocate General appearing for the State of Punjab submitted that Tehsildars were not included in the Subordinate Services, because no notification in that behalf was issued.As we have already observed, the question as to the effect of the rules framed in 1941 under S. 241 of the Government of India Act was never raised or argued before Bishan Narain J nor before the High Court in appeal. It is difficult for this Court to entertain any plea depending for its adjudication on notifications said to be issued by the Government from time to time, raised for the first time in appeal, when such notifications have never been brought to our notice.10. On the whole, we are of the view that the record does not support the contention that the Punjab Tehsildari Rules were not in operation at the date of dismissal. There is also nothing to show that the, Financial Commissioner was not invested at the material time with the power to dismiss a Tehsildar.