STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. versus Z.U. ANSARI
[2016] 6 S.C.R. 956, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Matter referred to larger bench
Segment: Ratio
A 
B 
c 
D 
[2016) 6 S.C.R. 956 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
v. 
Z.U. ANSARI 
(Civil Appeal No. 9886of2016) 
SEPTEMBER 30, 2016 
[T.S. THAKUR, CJI AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.] 
Civil Services Regulations, 1975 - Regn. 351-A - Sanction 
under - For initiation of disciplinary proceedings - Granted by the 
Minister-in-charge of the concerned Department, and not by the 
Governor himself - Validity of the sanction - Held: Per T.S. Thakur, 
CJI: The power to direct disciplinary proceedings against an in-
service or retired employee is an executive function to be discharged 
by the State Government - Jn terms of the Business of Uttar Pradesh 
(Allocation) Rules and U.P. Rules of Business, I 975, the said 
function stands allocated to the Ministercin-charge of the concerned 
department - The sanction so made was in law and in the 
constitutional scheme an order passed by the Governor of the State 
within the meaning of regn. 35JA and hence valid in law - Per V. 
Gopala Gowda, J: 1975 Regulations have been framed by the 
E 
·Governor in exercise of legislative power u/Art .. 309 of Constitution 
· - The same is distinct from his executive power under Art. I 66 of 
Constitution whereunder Business Transaction Rules were framed 
- The power under Regn. 351-A of 1975 Regulations can be 
delegated by the Governor , But such delegation cannot be under 
F 
G 
H 
Business Transaction Rules - Jn the absence of any evidence to 
show that the Government had delegated his power to the Minister
concerned, under Regn. 351-A to accord sanction, the sanction 
granted by the Minister cannot be said to be a valid sanction and 
hence cannot be sustained in law - Per Court: In view of difference 
of opinion, matter to be placed before appropriate Bench - Uttar 
Pradesh Business Transaction Rules, 1975 - Constitution of India 
- Arts, 154, 163, 166 and 309. 
Referring the matter to larger Bench, the Court 
Per T.S. Thakur, CJI. 
HELD: 1. The power to direct a disciplinary enquiry against 
956
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. v. Z.U. ANSARI 
an in-service or retired employee like the respondent is an 
executive function to be discharged by the State Government in 
exercise of the executive power of the State. [Para 16](973-D) 
2. The power to direct an enquiry into any misconduct is 
doubtless an executive function which can be exercised by the 
Government unless there are any limitations imposed by any 
constitutional or statutory provisions which there are none in 
the present case. Thus, the Governor is competent in terms of 
Article 166(3) to allocate such functions to be discharged and 
such powers being exercised by Ministers by framing rules of 
business. That is so especially when the Constitution does not 
require the Governor to exercise the function of sanctioning a 
disciplinary enquiry against a Government servant by himself 
instead of being left to the Minister under the rules that the 
Governor can frame. [Para 9](967-C-E] 
3. The Governor has, framed Business of Uttar Pradesh 
(Allocation) Rules, 1975. Uttar Pradesh Rules of Business, 1975, 
also have been framed by the Governor under Article 166(3) of 
the Constitution. Rule 3 of the said rules empowers the Minister 
in-charge of the department concerned to dispose of the business 
allotted to a department under U.P. (Allocation) Rules, 1975 
except in cases where the rules provide otherwise. Schedules 1 
and 2 to the Rules, set out the subjects on which the matter must 
under the Business Rules go either
to the Cabinet or to the Chief 
Minister or to Chief Minister and the Governor. There is, 
however, nothing in the said two schedules that would require 
the grant of sanction to initiate a disciplinary enquiry against a 
serving or retired Government servant to be brought up either 
before the Cabinet, the Chief Minister or the Governor. This 
would mean that sanction for the initiation of disciplinary 
proceedings against a retired Government servant is a niatter 
left to be dealt with by the Minister in charge of the Department 
concerned. [Paras 9, 10 and 12](967-E-F; 968-D-E; 969-C-D] 
4. Neither the Constitution nor the rules framed by the 
Governor under Article 166(3) of the Constitution require matters 
touching grant of sanction in cases like the present to be dealt 
with by the Governor and the Governor alone. The power to 
sanction stands validly conferred on the Minister concerned and 
957 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
958 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
once he takes a decision on the subject, it is in law and in the 
constitutional scheme deemed to be a decision or action taken 
by the Governor for all intended purposes including for the 
purpose of Regulation 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations, 
1975. (Para 12)(969-E-F] 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
5. In the present case, the Minister not only had the power 
to sanction the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, but, he 
had in fact exercised that power. The order so issued was 
conveyed by the Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh 
but even when the communication/order was not expressed in 
the name of the Governor the same was entitled to the immunity 
postulated under Article 166(2) of the Constitution. The order 
so made was in law and in the constitutional scheme an order 
passed by the Governor of the State within the meaning of 
Regulations 351-A of the Regulations and was, therefore, valid 
in the eye of law. [Para 16][973-F; 974-A-B] 
PU My/lai Hlychho and Ors. v. State of Mizoram and 
Ors. (2005) 2 SCC 92 : 2005 (1) SCR279 - followed. 
Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab and Am: (1974) 2 
SCC 831 : 1975 (1) SCR 814; State of MP. v. Dr. 
Yashwant Trimbak (1996) 2 SCC 305 : 1995 (6) Suppl. 
SCR 128 - relied on. 
State of Bihar v. Rani Sonabati Kumar 1961 (1) SCR 
728; Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Bir/a Cotton Spinning 
and Weaving Mills 1968 (3) SCR 251 - referred to. 
Per V. Gopala Gowda, J. _(Dissenting)
HELD: 1. Article 309 of the Constitution provides for the 
regulation of recruitment and conditions of service of persons 
serving the Union or a State. Regulation 351-A of the Civil 
Services Regulations, 1975 has been framed in exercise of power 
under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It is a settled 
position of law that while exercising power under Article 309 of 
the Constitution, the Governor acts in a legislative capacity and 
not executive capacity. [Paras 10 and 11][976-G; 977-D-E) 
B.S Yadav 'v. State of Haryana (1980) Supp. SCC 524 : 
1981 SCR 102 - relied on.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. v. Z.U. ANSARI 
2. Article 154 of the Constitution provides for the executive 
power of the State to be vested in the Governor. It is also a well 
settled principle of law that the Governor exercises executive 
power under. Article 166 of the Constitution. Article 166 of the 
Constitution thus, confers the power on the Governor to make 
rules for the convenient transaction of business of the Government 
of the State and for the allocation among its Ministers of the said 
business. [Paras 7, 8 and 9][975-B-C, G-H; 976-A] 
State of Gujarat v. R.A. Mehta (2013) 3 SCC 1 : 2005 
(1) SCR 279 - relied on. 
3. The powers under Articles 166(3) and 309 of the 
Constitution operate in completely different fields. It would thus, 
be absurd if the Rules made in exercise of power under Article 
166 of the Constitution, are used as a benchmark while exercising 
power under Article 309 of the Constitution. In the instant case, 
the Uttar Pradesh Business Transaction Rules, 1975, confer power 
on a minister in charge to exercise power in the name of Governor. 
The same however, cannot be used to justify the action of the 
minister when the exercise of power under the regulations framed 
under Article 309 of the Constitution is under scrutiny. [Para 
13] [979-C-D] 
Sampat Prakash v. State of Jammu and Kashmir AIR 
1970 SC 1118 : 1970 SCR 365 - followed. 
4. Sanction of the Governor is required before initiation of 
proceedings against a retired employee in terms of
Regulation 
351-A of the Civil Services Regulations, 1975. Undoubtedly, the 
said power under Regulation 351-A can be delegated by the 
Governor. However, the delegation accorded under the Business 
Transaction Rules, 1975, in respect of the power conferred under 
Article 166 of the Constitution, cannot be used as a substitute in 
the present case. [Para 14][980-F-G] 
State of U.P. v. Harihar Bho/e Nath (2006) 13 SCC 
460 : 2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 241; State of U.P. •: Krishna 
Pandey (1996) 9 SCC 395 : 1996 (3) SCR 183 -
referred to. 
5. Thus, while the fact that the powers may be delegated is 
959 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
960 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 6 S.C.R. 
not in dispute, what is essential to establish is that the delegation 
has infact taken place. Further, it is also essential to establish 
that what has been delegated is the relevant power under the 
relevant rule for the purpose. Delegation of power for one purpose 
cannot be understood to mean a delegation of power for all other 
purposes as well. The question in the present case is the statutory 
exercise of power under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services 
Regulations, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. [Paras 
16 and 17][9S3-G-H; 9S4-A; 9S5-C-D] 
State of MP. v. Yashwant Trimbak (1996) 2 SCC 305 
: 1995 (6) Suppl. SCR 12S;Shamsher Singh v. State of 
Punjab (1974) 2 SCC S31 : 1975 (1) SCR S14; State 
of Bihar v. Rani Sonabati Kumar AIR 1961 SC 221 : 
1961 SCR 72S; Godavari Shamrao Parulekar v. State 
of Maharashtra AIR 1964 SC 112S : 1964 SCR 446 
- distinguished. 
6. In the absence of any evidence on record to show that 
the Governor had delegated his power to the concerned Minister 
under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations, 1975 
to accord sanction, the sanction granted by the Minister in charge 
cannot be said to be a valid sanction and cannot be sustained in 
law. (Para 1S][9S5-D-E] 
Case Law Reference 
In the Judgment of T.S. Thakur, CJI.: 
1975 (1) SCR S14 
relied on 
1995 (6) Suppl. SCR 12S 
relied on 
1961 (1) SCR 72S 
referred to 
196S (3) SCR 251 
referred to
2005 (1) SCR279 
followed 
In the Judgment of V. Gopala Gowda, J. 
2005 (1) SCR 279 
19Sl SCR 102 
relied on 
relied on 
Paras 
Para 13 
Para 13 
Para 13 
Para 15 
Paras 
Para 11
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. v. Z.U. ANSARI 
961 
1970 SCR 365 
followed 
Para 12 
A 
2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 241 
referred to 
Para 14 
1996 (3) SCR 183 
referred to 
Para 14 
1995 (6) Suppl. SCR 128 
distinguished Para 14 
1975 (1) SCR 814 
distinguished Para 15 
B 
1961 SCR 728 
distin~uished Para 16 
1964 SCR 446 
distin~uished Para 17 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9886 
C 
of2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.02.2014 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19485 of 
2012: 
Gaurav Bhatia, AAG., Pawanshree Agrawal, Abhishek Chaudhary, 
Ad vs., with him for the Appellants. 
Subramonium Prasad, Sr. Adv., Abhishekh Swaroop, Utkarsh 
Srivastava, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Advs., with him for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
T.S. THAKUR, CJI. I. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 3rd 
February, 2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 
whereby Writ Petition No.19485 of 2012 filed by the respondent has 
D 
E 
been allowed and disciplinary proceedings based on charge-sheet dated 
F 
26'h June, 2011 issued to the respondent quashed with the direction that 
the writ petitioner-respondent herein shall be entitled to all consequential 
benefits. 
3. The respondent-writ petitioner before the High Court joined 
the Saharanpur Division of Rural Engineering Department of the State 
G 
ofUttar Pradesh as a Junior Engineer on 26•h February, 1973. He was 
promoted
to the post of Assistant Engineer on 25'h April, 1981 and 
transferred to Pratapgarh Division, and thereafter to several other places 
till he superannuated from service on 30'h September, 2008. 
H
962 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 6 S.C.R. 
4. Financial irregularities allegedly causing a pecuniary loss to 
the tune of Rs.13,23,964/- to the State exchequer, having been noticed, a 
proposal for initiating disciplinary proceedings was mooted by the Rural 
Engineering Department and sanctioned by the Minister in-charge of 
Rural Engineering Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh on 71h 
January, 2011. A charge-sheet dated 27'h June, 2011 was accordingly 
issued to the respondent and Chief Engineer (WB) was nominated as 
Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry into the charges. Aggrieved, the 
respondent filed Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.19485 of 2012 
before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The principal contention 
urged in support of that Writ Petition was that in the absence of a valid 
sanction from the Governor under35 I-A of the Civil Services Regulations, 
1975 fran1ed under Article 309 of the Constitution oflndia, the disciplinary 
action proposed against the respondent was legally impermissible. That 
contention found favour with a Division Bench of the High Court of 
Allahabad, who, as noticed earlier, has allowed the Writ Petition and 
quashed the disciplinary proceedings including the charge-sheet served 
upon the respondent. The High Court has taken the view that Article 
166 of the Constitution oflndia relied upon by the State in support of the 
sanction issued by the Minister in-charge of Department of Rural
Engineering, Government of Uttar Pradesh, and Article 309 of the 
Constitution oflndia operate in distinctly different fields. The High Court 
declared that if Service Regulations framed under Article 309 of the 
Constitution oflndia require sanction of the Governor before initiating 
the departmental proceedings against a retired employee any such sanction 
must be granted by the Governor himself and not by the Minister in-
charge of the department concerned. The High Court observed that in 
terms of U.P. Rules of Business, 1975 only such business can be dealt 
with by the Minister as is allocated to him under the said Rules. There 
was, according to the High Court, nothing to suggest that the power to 
sanction disciplinary proceedings against a retired government servant 
had been allocated to the Minister to be disposed of by general or special 
directions of the Minister. The sanction granted by the Minister for 
initiating departmental proceedings against the respondent was, in that 
view, held to be insufficient to maintain such proceedings. The sum total 
of the reasoning given by the High Court is contained in the following 
passage extracted from the impugned judgment: 
"We are of the considered opinion that the provisions
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. v. Z.U. ANSARI 
[T. S. THAKUR, CJI] 
of Article 309 of the Constitution of India operate in a 
separate field vis-a-vis the conduct of government 
business under Article 166 of the Constitution of India. 
They are not overlapping. Therefore, if under the 
service rules framed under Article 309 of the 
Constitution of India namely the Civil Services 
Regulations, 1975, it has be.en provided that sanction 
of the Governor would be necessary before initiation 
of the departmental proceedings with the service of the 
charge-sheet upon the retired employee then such 
sanction has to be that of the Governor and not of the 
minister with reference to the UP Secretariat Instructions 
1982 framed under the Rules of Business, 1975. We 
may also record that the UP Secretariat Instructions 
1982, Chapter VII only provide that all business 
a/located to a department under the Rules of Business, 
1975 is to be disposed of by or under the General or 
special directions of the minister in-charge (Reference 
Business Regulations 3). It is, therefore, clear that only 
such business as allocated to the department under the 
Rules of Business, 1975 can be disposed of under the 
general or special directions of the minister in-charge. 
Nothing has been defl!Onstrated before us to lead us to 
accept that the power to sanction the departmental 
proceedings in respect of a retired government servant 
has been allocated as a business to be disposed of under 
the general or
special directions of the minister 
concerned under the Business Regulations. 
We have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that the 
sanction of the minister referable to the Bus-iness 
Regulations in the facts of the case will not amount to 
the sanction of the Governor as contemplated by 
Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations, 
1975." 
. 
5. The present appeal, as noticed earlier, assails the correctness 
of the view taken by the High Court. The legal position on the subject is, 
in my opinion, fairly settled by the decisions of this Court to which I shall 
presently refer, but, before I do so I may gainfully extract Regulation 
963 
A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
964 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
351 A of the Civil Service Regulations, 1975 which reads as under: 
"351-A. The Governor reserves to himself the right of 
withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part ofit. 
whether permanently or for a specified period and the 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
right of ordering the recovery (rom the pension of the 
whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to 
Government, if the pensioner is found in departmental 
or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave 
misconduct, or to have caused. Pecuniary loss to 
government by misconduct or Negligence, during his 
service, including service rendered on re-employment 
after retirement: 
Provided that-
(a) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted 
while the officer was on duty either before retirement 
or during re-employment-
' 
(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction 
of the Governor, 
{ii)shall be in respect of an event which took place 
not more than four years before the institution 
of such proceedings, and 
(iii)shal/ be conducted by such authority an'd in 
such place or places as the Governor may 
direct and in accordance with the procedure 
applicable to proceedings on which an order 
of dismissal from service may be made... . .. 
" 
6. I may at this stage also refer to Article 163 of the Constitution 
oflndia, which, i11ter alia, postulates that the Governor is bound to act 
on the aid and advise of Council of Ministers except in so far as he is by 
G 
or
under the Constitution required to exercise his functions or any of 
H 
them in his discretion: 
''163. Council of Ministers to aid and advise Governor 
(1) There shall be a council of Ministers with the chief 
Minister at the head to aid and advise the Governor in
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. v. Z.U. ANSARI 
965 
[T. S. THAKUR, CJI] 
the exercise of his .functions, except in so far as he is by 
A 
or under this constitution required to exercise his 
functions or any of them in his discretion 
(2) If any question arises whether any matter is or is 
not a matter as respects which the Governor is by or 
under this Constitution required to act in his discretion, 
B 
the decision of the Governor in his discretion shall be 
final, and the validity of anything done by the Governor 
shall not be called in question on the ground that he 
ought or ought not to have acted in his discretion 
(3) The question whether any, and if so what, advice 
c 
was tendered by Ministers to the Governor shall not be 
inquired into in any court" 
7. Reference may also be made to Article 166 of the Constitution 
of India which deals with conduct of Government business and inter 
alia provides that all executive action of the State shall be expressed to 
D 
be taken in the name of Governor. It reads: 
"166. Conduct of business of tile Government of a State 
(1) All executive action of the Government of a State 
shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the 
~~& 
E 
(2) Orders and otb_er instruments made and executed in 
the name of the Governor shall be authenticated in such 
manner as may be specified in rules to be made by the 
Governor, and the validity of an order on instruction 
which is so authenticated shall not be called in question 
F 
on the ground that it
is not an order or instrument made 
or executed by the Governor 
(3) The Governor shall make rules for the more 
convenient transaction of the business of the 
Government of the State, and for the a/location among 
Cl 
Ministers of the said business in so far as it is not 
business with respect to which the Governor is by or 
under this Constitution required to act in his discretion" 
8. One of the earliest decisions of this Court that interpreted Article 
H
966 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 6 S.C.R. 
163(1) was delivered in Sltamslter Singlt v. State of Punjab and Anr. 
(1974) 2 SCC 831. This Court in that case recognised two broad 
principles while interpreting Article 163 (supra). Firstly, this Court declared 
that except functions required by the Constitution to be exercised by the 
Governor in his discretion the Governor acts on the aid and advice of 
Council of Ministers. Secondly, this Court declared that the functions 
vested in the Governor whether executive, legislative or quasi-judicial in 
nature and whether vested by the Constitution or by statute can be 
delegated under the Rules of Business unless a contrary intention is 
clearly discernible from any constitutional or statutory provision. This 
Court observed: 
"48. The President as well as the Governor is the 
constitutional or formal head The President as well as 
the Governor exercises his powers and (unctions 
conferred on him by or under the Constitution on the 
aid and advice of his Council of Ministers. save in 
spheres where the Governor is required by or under the 
Constitution to exercise his functions in his discretion. 
Wherever the Constitution requires the satisfaction of 
the President or the Governor for the exercise by the 
President or the Governor of any power or function. 
the satisfaction required by the Constitution is not the 
personal satisfaction Q( the President or Governor but 
the satisfaction of the President or
Governor in the 
constitutional sense in the Cabinet system of 
Governnient. that is. satisfaction of his Council of 
Ministers on whose aid and advice the President or the 
Governor generally exercises all his powers and 
functions. The decision of any Minister or officer under 
Rules of Business made under any of these two Articles 
77(3) and 166(3/ is the decision of the President or the 
Governor respectively. These articles did not provide 
for any delegation. Therefore, the decision of a Minister 
or officer under the Rules of Business is the decision of 
the President or the Governor. " 
xxx 
xxx 
xxx 
57. For the foregoing reasons we hold that the President 
H 
or the Governor acts on the aid and advice of the
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. v. Z.U. ANSARI 
[T. S. THAKUR, CJI] 
Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head 
in the case of the Union and the Chief Minister at the 
head in the case of State in all matters which vests in 
the Executive whether those functions are executive or 
legislative in character. Neither the President nor the 
Governor is to exercise the executive functions 
personally. . . . . . . . .. " 
(emphasis supplied) 
9. The question then is whether the power to initiate disciplinary 
proceedings against a Government servant whether in service or retired 
is an executive function for the Government to exercise. My answer is 
in the affirmative. The power to direct an enquiry into any misconduct is 
doubtless an executive function which can be exercised by the 
Government unless there are any limitations imposed by any constitutional 
or statutory provisions which there are none in the case at hand. If that 
be so as it indeed is, the Governor is competent in terms of Article 166(3) 
to allocate such functions to be discharged and such powers being 
exercised by Ministers by framing rules of business. That is so especially 
when the Constitution does not require the Governor to exercise the 
function of sanctioning a disciplinary enquiry against a Government servant 
by himself instead of being left to the Minister under the rules that the 
Governor can frame. The Governor has, in the case at hand, framed 
Business ofUttar Pradesh (Allocation) Rules,
1975. Rule 2 of the said 
Rules reads: 
"2(1) The business of the Government shall be 
transacted in the sections or departments of the Uttar 
Pradesh Secretariat as may be specified by general or 
special orders of Governor, issued from time to time, in 
that behalf. 
Provided that until further orders, the orders relating 
to allocation in force immediately before the 
commencement of these rules; shall continue in force. 
(2) In addition to the subjects specifically a/located or 
deemed to be allocated to them under sub-rule (1), all 
Sections or departments of the Uttar Pradesh Secretariat 
967 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
968 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 6 S.C.R. 
shall have powers to issue orders under any of the 
following lmvs, in so far as the subject is allocated to 
them and subject to general directions of the Chief 
Secretary. 
(a) The defence of India Act and rules for the time being 
' inforce; 
(b) Any law for the time being in force for the 
maintenance of essential services or essential 
supplies. 
(c) The Essei1tial Commodities Act for the time being in 
force; 
(d) Any lmv relating to land acquisition for the time being 
in force; 
(e) Sanction for prosecution for any offence relating to 
the subject allocated to the Section or department. " 
I 0. Reference may also be made now to Uttar Pradesh Rules of 
Business, 1975, framed by the Governor under Article 166(3) of the 
Constitution. Rule 3 of the said rules empowers the Minister in-charge 
of the department concerned to dispose of the business allotted to a 
department under U.P. (Allocation) Rules, 1975 except in cases where 
the rules provide otherwise. Rule 3 reads: 
"Disposal of Business: Subject to the provisions of these 
rules in regard to consultation with other departments 
and submission of cases of the Chief Minister, cabinet 
an_d the Governor, all business allotted, to a department 
under the business of U.P. (Allocation) Rules, 1975. 
shall be disposed of by or under the general or special 
direction of the Minister-in-charge". 
1 I. Rules 7 and 8 of the Business Rules which provide for
submission of cases to the Cabinet or the Chief Minister or the Governor 
or the Chief Minister and the Governor are relevant for the purpose and 
may be extracted: 
"7. Submission of cases to tlie Cabi11et -All cases 
specified in the First Schedule to these rules shall be 
brought before the Cabinet:
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. v. Z.U. ANSARI 
969 
[T. S. THAKUR, CJI] 
Provided that no case which concerns more than one 
A 
department shall, save in cases of urgency be brought 
before the Cabinet umil all the departments concerned 
have been consulted. 
8. Submission of cases of tile Cllief Minister and tile 
Governor - All cases of the nature specified in the 
B 
Second Schedule to these rules shall, before the issue 
of orders thereon, be submitted to the Chief Minister or 
to the Governor or the Chief Minister and the Governor 
as indicated therein." 
12. Schedules I and 2 referred to in the above rules set out the 
C 
subjects on which the matter must under the Business Rules go either to 
the Cabinet or to the Chief Minister or to Chief Minister and the Governor. 
There is, however, nothing in the said two schedules that would require 
the grant of sanction to initiate a disciplinary enquiry against a serving or 
retired Government servant to be brought up either before the Cabinet, 
the Chief Minister or the Governor. This would mean that sanction for 
the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against a retired Government 
servant is a matter left to be dealt with by the Minister in charge of the 
Department concerned. Suffice it to say that neither the Constitution 
nor the rules framed by the Governor under Article 166(3) require matters 
touching grant of sanction in cases like the present to be dealt with by 
the Governor and the Governor alone. The power to
sanction stands 
validly conferred on the Minister concerned and once he takes a decision 
on the subject, it is in law and in the constitutional scheme deemed to be 
a decision or action taken by the Governor for all intended purposes 
including for the purpose of Regulation 351 (A) of the Civil Service 
Regulations, 197 5. 
13. In State of M.P. v. Dr. Yllsl1want Trimbllk (1996) 2 SCC 
305, this Court was dealing with a case where disciplinary proceedings 
were started against a retired Director of Institute of Animal Health and 
Veterinary Biological Products, before initiating the proceedings the 
sanction of the Council of Ministers was obtained under the M.P. Civil 
Service Pensions Rules, 1976. The sanction order purported to be in the 
name of the Governor which was conveyed under the signature of the 
Under Secretary to Government of Madhya Pradesh. The State 
Administrative Tribunal, however, quashed the departmental enquiry for 
want ofa valid sanction under the Rules aforementioned. Relying upon 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
\,
970 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 6 S.C.R. 
the decisions of this Court in State of Biliar v. Rani Sonahati Kumar 
1961 (1) SCR 728, and Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Birl<t Cotton 
Spinning and Weaving Mills 1968 (3) SCR 251, this Court allowed 
the State's appeal in the following words: 
"14. The Rule in question no doubt provides that 
departmental proceedings if not instituted while the 
government servant was in service whether before his 
retirement or during his re-employment, shall not be 
instituted save with the sanction of the Governor. The 
question that arises for consideration is whether it 
requires the sanction of the Governor himself or the 
Council of Ministers in whose favour the Governor 
under the Rules of Business Jias allocated the matter, 
can also sanction. It is undisputed that under Article 
166(3) of the Constitution the Governor has made rule 
for convenient transaction of the business of the 
Government and the question of sanction to prosecute 
in the case in hand was dealt with by the Council of 
Ministers in accordance with the Rules of Business. 
Under Article 154 of the Constitution, the executive 
power of the State vests in the Governor and is exercised 
by him either directly or through officers subordinate 
to him in accordance with the Constitution. The 
expression "executive power" is wide enough td connote 
the residue of the governmental function that remains 
after the legislative and judicial functions are
taken 
away. 
xxxx 
xxxx 
x.xxx 
17. The order of sanction (or prosecution of a retired 
government servant is undoubtedly an executive action 
ofthe Government. A Governor in exercise o(his powers 
under Article 166(3) of the Constitution may allocate 
all his (unctions to different Ministers by framing rules 
of business except those in which the Governor is 
required by the Constitution to exercise his own 
discretion. The expression "business o(the Government 
of the State" in Article 166(3) of the Constitution. 
comprises (unctions which the Governor is to exercise
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. v. Z.U. ANSARI 
971 
[T. S. THAKUR, CJI] 
with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers 
A 
including those which he is empowered to exercise on 
his subjective satisfaction and including statutory 
functions of the State Government. The Court has held 
in Goclavari Shamrao Parulekar v. State of Maharashtra 
(AIR 1964 SC 1128) that even the functions and duties 
which are vested in a State Government by a statute 
may be allocated to Ministers by the Rules of Business 
framed under Article 166(3) of the Constitution. Jn State 
of Bihar v. Rani Sonabati Kumari (AIR 1961 SC 221), 
where power of issuing notificatio!1 under Section 3(1) 
of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 have been 
conferred on the Governor of Bihar, this Court held: 
"Section 3(1) of the Act confers the power of issuing 
notifications under it, not on any officer but on the State 
Government as such though the exercise of that power 
would be governed by the rules of business framed by 
the Governor under Article 166(3) of the Constitution. " 
18. Therefore, excepting the matters with respect to 
which the Governor is required by or under the 
Constitution to act in his discretion. the personal 
satisfaction of the Governor is not required and any 
function mqy be allocated to Ministers. " 
(emphasis supplied) 
14. The sanction order, in the case at hand, was no doubt issued 
under the signature of the Under Secretary and does not purport to be in 
the name of the Governor but
that does not make any material difference 
as the immunity in Article 166(2) of the Constitution will be available 
even to such an order, no sooner it is found on the basis of the material 
on record that an order had indeed been made by the competent authority 
under the Business Rules. In Trimbak's case (supra) this Court had 
relying upon the decision in M.C.D. v. Bir/a Cotton Spinning & 
Weaving Mills (supra) held: 
"12. Even where an order is issued by Secretary of the 
Government without indicating that it is by order of the 
Central Government or by order of the President, this 
Court C(Jme to the conclusion that the immunity in Article 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
972 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 6 S.C.R. 
166(2) would be available if it appears from other 
material that in fact the decision had been taken by the 
Government. In Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Bir/a 
Cotton, Spg. and Wvg. Mills (AIR 1968 SC 1232) this 
Court came lo the conclusion that in fact sanction had 
been given by the Central Government as required under 
the Act though the order did not indicate to be so. " 
15. The constitutional scheme and the ethos of Parliamentary/ 
Cabinet System of Government was explained by a Constitution Bench 
of this Court in PU Myl/ai Hlyc/1/10 lmd Ors. v. State of Mizoram and 
Ors. (2005) 2 SCC 92) in relation to the role of the Governor and 
matters relating to the exercise of powers by him upon satisfaction in 
the following words: 
"14. Our Constitution envisages the Parliamentary or 
Cabinet system of Government of the British model both 
for the Union and the States. Under the Cabinet system 
of Government as embodied in our Constitution the 
Governor is the constitutional or formal head of the 
State and he exercises all his powers and functions 
conferred on him by or under the Constitution on the 
aid and advice of the Council of Ministers save in 
spheres where the Governor is required by or under the 
Constitution to exercise his functions in his discretion. 
15. The executive power also partakes the legislative 
or certain judicial actions. Wherever the Constitution 
requires the satisfaction of
the Governor for the exercise 
of any power or function, the satisfaction required by 
the Constitution is not personal satisfaction of the 
Governor bu/ the satisfaction in the constitutional sense 
under the Cabinet system of Government. The Governor 
exercises functions conferred on him by or under the 
C<;mstitution with the aid and advice of the Council of 
Ministers and he is competent to make rules for 
convenient transaction of the business of the 
Government of the State, by allocation of business 
amohg the Ministers, under Article 166(3) of the 
Constitution. It is a fundamental principle of English 
Constitutional Law that Ministers must accept
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. v. Z.U. ANSARI 
[T. S. THAKUR, CJI] 
responsibility for every executive act. It may also be 
noticed that in regard to the executive action taken in 
the name of the Governor. he cannot be sued for any 
executive action of the State and Article 300 specifically 
states that Government of a State may sue or be sued in 
the name of the State subject to the restriction placed 
therein. This Court has consistently taken the view that 
the powers of the President and the powers of the 
Governor are similar to the powers of the Crown under 
the British Parliamentary system. We followed this 
principle in Ram Jawaya Kapur vs. State of Punjab AIR 
1955 SC 549, A. Sanjeevi Naidu vs. State of Madras 
(1970) I SCC 443, and U.N.R. Rao vs. Indira Gandhi 
(197IJ 2 sec 63 ... 
16. In the light of the above pronouncements I have no hesitation 
in ho!ding that: 
(i) The power to direct a disciplinary enquiry against an in-service 
or retired employee like the respondent is an executive function 
to be discharged by the State Government in exercise of the 
executive power of the State; 
(ii) In terms of the Business ofUttar Pradesh (Allocation) Rules 
and the. UP Rules of Business 1975, the said function stands 
allocated to the Ministers in- charge of the department 
concerned like the Department of Rural Engineering in the 
case at hand; 
(iii) The Minister not only had the power to sanction the initiation 
of the disciplinary proceedings, but, he had in fact
exercised 
that power when he said: 
"Hon 'b/e Minister for Rural Engineering 
Services. Lucknow. 
Let the disciplinary inquiry conducted and 
inquiry report be submitted. 
Dr. Jaiveer Singh 
Department of Rural Engineering Services, 
Overseas Agro Trade and Export" 
973 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
974 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
(iv)The order so issued was conveyed by the Secretary to the 
Government of Uttar Pradesh but even when the 
communication/order was not expressed in the name of the 
Governor the same was entitled to the immunity postulated 
under Article 166(2) of the Constitution. 
B 
(v) The order so made was in Jaw and in the constitutional scheme 
an order passed by the Governor of the State within the meaning 
of Regulations 351-A of the Regulations and was, therefore, 
valid in the eye of law. 
17. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The 
c 
order passed by the High Court is set aside and Writ Petition No.19485 
of 2012 filed by the respondent dismissed with costs assessed at 
Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only). 
V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. I. I have gone through the judgment 
written by the learned Chief Justice oflndia in the present appeal. I am 
D 
however, in respectful disagreement with the opinion of the learned Chief 
Justice and record my reasons for the same. 
2. Since the relevant facts of the case have been stated by the 
learned Chief Justice in his opinion, the same are not stated again for the 
sake of brevicy. 
E 
3. The short point which arises for consideration in the instant 
case is whether the sanction accorded by the Minister of the concerned 
department in the instant case amounts to a valid sanction for the purpose 
of Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations, 1975. 
4. The Civil
Services Regulations, 1975 have been framed under 
F 
Article 309 of the Constitution oflndia. According to Regulation 3 51-A 
of the same, prior sanction of the Governor is required to be obtained 
before initiation of departmental proceedings against an officer of the 
government who has retired. 
· 
5. The Uttar Pradesh Rules of Business, 1975 have been framed 
G 
under Article 166 of the Constitution of India by the Governor of the 
H 
State ofUttar Pradesh. Rule 3 of the said Rules reads as under: 
"3. Disposal of Business- Subject to the provisions of 
these Rules in regard to consultation with other departments 
and submission of cases to the Chief Minister the cabinet
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. v. Z.U. ANSARI 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.] 
and the Governor, all business allotted to a department under 
the Business of U.P. (Allocation) Rules, 1975, shall be 
disposed of by or under the general or special directions of 
the Minister in charge." 
6. Before I examine the validity of the sanction accorded by the 
Minister in charge, it is important to examine the relevant constitutional 
provisions at play in the instant case. 
7. Article 154 of the Constitution oflndia provides for the executive 
power of the State to be vested in the Governor and reads as under: 
"154. Executive power of State.-( I) The executive 
power of the State shall be vested in the Governor and 
shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers 
subordinate to him in accordance with this Constitution." 
• 
Article 166 of the Constitution reads as under: 
"166. Conduct of business of the Government of a 
State.-( 1) All executive action of the Government of a 
State shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the 
Governor. 
(2) Orders and other instruments made and executed in the 
name of the Governor shall be authenticated in such manner 
as may be specified in rules to be made by the Governor, 
and the validity of an order or instrument which is so 
authenticated shall not be called in question on the ground 
that it is not an order or instrument made or executed by 
the Governor. 
(3) The Governor shall make rules for the more convenient 
transaction of the
business of the Government of the State, 
and for the allocation among Ministers of the said business 
in so far as it is not business with respect to which the 
Governor is by or under this Constitution required to act in 
his discretion." 
(emphasis laid by this Court) 
8. Article 166 of the Constitution thus, confers the power on the 
Governor to make rules for the convenient transaction of business of the 
Government of the State and for the allocation among its Ministers of 
975 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
976 
A 
B 
c 
• 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 6 S.C.R. 
the said business. All matters except those on which the Governor is 
required to act in exercise of his individual discretion have to be allocated 
to some Minister on the advice of the Chief Minister. Apart from allocating 
business amongst Ministers, the Governor can also make rules on the 
advice of the Council of Ministers for convenient transaction of the 
business. Thus, it becomes clear from a perusal of these provisions that 
the Rules of Business under Article 166 of the Con&titution are framed 
essentially for the ease or convenience of the working of the departments 
of the State Government. 
9. It is also a well settled principle oflaw that the Governor exercises 
executive power under Article 166 of the Constitution. In the case of 
State of Gujarat v. R.A. Meltlfl 1, this Court held as under: 
" ...... Under Article 154 of the Constitution, the executive 
powers of the State are vested in the Governor, which may 
be exercised by him either directly, or through officers 
subordinate to him, in accordance with the provisions of 
the Constitution. Article 161 confers upon the Governor, a 
large number of powers including the grant of pardon, 
reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment etc. Such 
executive power can be exercised by him, only in 
accordance with the aid and advice of the Council of 
Ministers. Article 162 states that the executive power of 
the State, shall extend to all such
matters, with respect to 
which, the legislature of the State has the power to make 
laws. Therefore, the said provision, widens the powers of 
the Governor. Article 166(3) of the Constitution. further 
bestows upon the Governor the power to make rules for 
more convenient transactions of business, of the Government 
of the State, and also for the purpose of allocating among 
the Ministers of State, such business." 
(emphasis laid by this Court) 
G 
I 0. Article 309 of the Constitution which provides for the regulation 
ofrecruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Un ion or 
a state is quoted hereunder :-
"309. Recruitment and conditions of service of 
persons serving the Union or a State.-Subject to the 
H 
'(2013) 3 sec 1
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. v. Z.U. ANSARI 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.] 
provisions of this Constitution, Acts of the appropriate 
Legislature may regulate the recruitment, and conditions of 
service of persons appointed, to public services and posts 
in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State: 
Provided that it shall be competent for the President or such 
person as he may direct in the case of services and posts in 
connection with the affairs of the Union, and for the 
Governor of a State or such person as he may direct in the 
case of services and posts in connection with the affairs of 
the State, to make rules regulating the recruitment, and the 
conditions of service of persons appointed. to such services 
and posts until provision in that behalf is made by or under 
an Act of the appropriate Legislature under this article, and 
any rules so made shall have effect subject to the provisions 
of any such Act." 
(emphasis laid by this Court) 
11. In the instant case, there is no dispute regarding the fact that 
Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations, 1975 has been framed 
in exercise of power under Article 309 of the Constitution oflndia. It is 
a settled position oflaw that while exercising power under Article 309 of 
the Constitution; the Governor acts in a legislative capacity and not 
executive capacity. In B.S Yatlav v. State of Haryana2, a Constitution 
Bench of this Court held as under: 
"44 ..... The proviso to Article 309 provides, in so far as
material, that until the State legislature passes a law on the 
particular subject. it shall be competent to the Governor of 
the State to make rules regulating the recruitment and the 
conditions of service of the judicial officers of the State. 
The Governor thus steps in when the legislature does not 
act. The power. exercised by the Governor under the proviso 
is thus a power which the legislature is competent to 
exercise but has in fact not yet exercised. It partakes of 
the characteristics of the legislative. not executive, 
power. It is legislative power. 
45. That the Governor possesses legislative power under 
2 ( I 980) Supp. sec 524 
977 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
978 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 6 S.C.R. 
our Constitution is incontrovertible and, therefore, there is 
nothing unique about the Governor's power under the 
proviso to Article 309 being in the nature of a legislative 
power. By Article 158, the Governor of a State is a part of 
the legislature of the State. And the most obvious exercise 
of legislative power by the Governor is the power given to 
him by Article 213 to promulgate Ordinances when the 
legislature is not in session. Under that Article, he exercises 
a power of the same kind which the legislature normally 
exercises, the power to make Jaws. The heading of Chapter 
IV of Part VI of the Constitution, in which Article 213 
occurs, is significant: 'Legislative Powerofthe Governor". 
The power of the Governor under the proviso to Article 
309 to make appropriate rules is of the same kind. It is 
legislative power. Under Article 213, he substitutes forthe 
legislature because the legislature is in recess. Under the 
proviso to Article 309, he substitutes for the legislature 
because the legislature has not yet exercised its power to 
pass an appropriate law on the subject." 
(emphasis laid by this Court) 
12. The distinction between the powers conferred under Articles 
166(3) and 309 was discussed by a Constitution Bench of this Court in 
the case of Sampat Prakaslt v. State of Jammu am/ Kasltmir1, as 
under: 
"11. ...... As an example, under Article 77(3), the President, 
and, under
Article 166(3) the Governor of a State are 
empowered to make rules for the more convenient 
transaction of the business of the Government ofrndia or 
the Government of the State, as the case may be, and for 
the allocation among Ministers of the said business. If, for 
the interpretation of these provisions, Section 21 of the 
General Clauses Act is not applied, the result would be that 
the rules once made by the President or a Governor would 
become inflexible and the allocation of the business among 
the Ministers would forever remain as laid down in the first 
rules. Clearly, the power of amending these rules from time 
3 AIR 1970 SC 1118
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. v. Z.U. ANSARI 
979 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.] 
to time to suit changing situations must be held to exist and 
A 
that power can only be found in these articles by applying 
Section 21 of the General Clauses Act. There are other 
similar rule-making powers, such as the power of making 
service rules under Article 309 of the Constitution. That 
power must also be exercisable from time to time and must 
include within it the power to add to, amend, vary orrescind 
any of those rules ...... " 
(emphasis laid by this Court) 
13. It becomes clear from a perusal of the constitutional provisions 
and case law referred to supra that the powers under Articles 166(3) 
and 309 of the Constitution operate in completely different fields. It would 
thus, be absurd ifthe Rules made in exercise of power under Article 166 
of the Constitution, are used as a benchmark while exercising power 
under Article 309 of the Constitution. Jn the instant case, the Uttar Pradesh 
Business Transaction Rules, 1975, confer power on a minister in charge 
to exercise power in the name of Governor. The same however, cannot 
be used to justify the action of the minister when the exercise of power 
under the regulations framed under Article 309 of the Constitution is 
under scrutiny, as is sought to be done in the instant case. 
14. Specifically on the issue of Regulation 351-A of the Civil 
Services Regulations, in the case of State of U.J>. ,, Harilutr B/10/e 
Natll 4, where the order of
sanction against the respondent therein who 
was a clerk in a Government department had been ordereg by the 
Secretary in the name of the Governor, it was held by this Court as 
under: 
" ... The proceedings for recovery of the amount from a 
Government servant can be passed in the event he is held 
to be guilty of grave misconduct or caused pecuniary loss 
to Government by his misconduct or negligence during his 
service. Some procedural safeguards, however, have been 
laid down in terms of proviso appended thereto, including 
the requirement to obtain an order of sanction of the 
Governor. Such order of sanction, however, would not be 
necessary if the departmental proceedings have been 
initiated while the delinquent was on duty. Proviso appended 
'(2006) 13 sec 460 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
980 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
to Regulation 351-A merely controls the main proceedings. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The same would apply in the exigencies of the situation 
envisaged therein, namely, even the proceedings were 
initiated after retirement and nor prior thereto." 
(emphasis laid by this Court) 
Further, in State of U.P. v. Krishna Pandey-', after referring to 
Regulation 351-A, this Court held as under: 
"A reading thereof clearly indicates that the Governor 
reserves to himself the power and right to withhold or 
withdraw pension or a part thereof, whether permanently 
or for a specified period. Equally, he has right to order 
recovery from pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary 
loss caused to Government when it is found in a 
departmental or judicial proceedings that the delinquent was 
guilty of grave misconduct or has caused pecuniary loss to 
the Government by his misconduct or negligence while he 
was continuing in service including the period of his re-
employment after retirement.. ... and the same shall not be 
instituted without the sanction of the Governor. It should be 
in respect of an event which may have taken place not 
more than 4 years before the institution of such 
proceedings." 
(emphasis laid by this Court) 
It is amply clear from a perusal of the abovementioned case law 
that sanction of the Governor is required before initiation of proceedings 
against a retired employee in terms of Regulation 351-A of the Civil
Services Regulations, 1975. Undoubtedly, the said power under Regulation · 
351-A can be delegated by the Governor. However, the delegation 
accorded under the Business Transaction Rules, 1975, in respect of the 
power conferred under Article 166 of the Constitution cannot be used as 
a substitute in the present case. The case of State of M.P. v. Yasltwmzt 
Trimbak6 on which strong reliance has been placed on by Mr. Gaurav 
Bhatia, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of 
the appellants, is also misplaced, as in that case the essential question 
was authentication of the action of the Governor under Article 166(3) of 
'(1996)9 sec 395 
"(1996) 2 sec 305
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. v. Z.U. ANSARI 
981 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.] . 
the Constitution. It was held in that case was that once the Governor 
A 
delegates his power under Article.166(3) of the Constitution, then it is no 
longer his personal satisfaction that is required in those matters. It was 
held specifically as under: 
" ..... .In this view of the matter when the Governor has 
framed rules of business under Article 166(3) of the 
B 
Constitution allocating his functions and it is the Council of 
Ministers which- has taken the decision to sanction 
prosecution of the respondent, we see no legal infirmity in 
the same. The Tribunal erred in law in coming to the 
conclusion that the sanction required under the rule is a 
sanction of the Governor." 
(emphasis laid by this Court) 
.The said case cannot oe used to suggest that once power is 
delegated under Article 166(3) by the Governor, then that automatically 
takes away his powers under other Articles of the Constitution as well. 
The powers under Articles 166(3) and 309 of the Constitution operate in 
separate fields, and one cannot be used to substitute the other in the 
absence of express conferment of power by the Governor. 
15. Further reliance has been placed on a seven-judge Bench of 
this Court in the case of S/1ams/1er Singll v. State of Punjab', wherein 
it was held that the Governor exercises the powers vested in him on the 
aid and advice of the council of ministers. But the said judgment also has 
no bearing
on the facts of the case at hand. The fact situation in the 
Slramsller Singll (supra) case dealt with the executive power of the 
Governor, as the case related to the appointment of persons other than 
district judges to the Judicial Services of the state which is supposed to 
be made by the Governor under Article 234 of the Constitution. It was 
held in that case as under: 
29. The executive power is generally described as the 
residue which does not fall within the legislative or judicial 
power. But executive power may also partake oflegislative 
or judicial actions. All powers and functions of the President 
except his legislative powers as for example in Article 123, 
viz., ordinance making power.and all powers and functions 
of the Governor except his legislative power as for example 
1 (1974)2 sec s31 
c . 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
982 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 6 S.C.R. 
in Article 213 being ordinance making powers are executive 
powers of the Union vested in the President under Article 
53(1) in one case arid are executive powers of the State 
vested in the Governor under Article 154( I) in the other 
case. Clause (2) or Clause (3) of Article 77 is not limited in 
its operation to the executive action of the Government of 
India under Clause (1) of Article 77. Similarly, Clause (2) 
or Clause (3) of Article 166 is not limited in its operation to 
the executive acti6n of the Government of the State under 
Clause (I) of Article 166. The expression "Business of the 
Government of India" in Clause (3) of Article 77, and the 
expression "Business of the Government of the State" in 
Clause (3) of Article 166 includes all executive business. 
30. Jn all cases in which the President or the Governor 
exercises his functions conferred on him by or under the 
Constitution with the aid and advice of his Council of 
Ministers he does so by making rules for convenient 
transaction of the business of the Government of India or 
the Government of the State respectively or by allocation 
among his Ministers of the said business, in accordance 
with Article 77(3) and 166(3) respectively. Wherever the 
Constitution requires the satisfaction of President or the 
Governor for the exercise of any power or function by the 
President or the Governor, as the case may be, as for 
example in
Articles 123, 213, 311 (2) proviso (c), 317, 352(1 ), 
356 and 360 the satisfaction required by the Constitution is 
not the personal satisfaction of the President or of the 
Governor but is the satisfaction of the President or of the 
Governor in the Constitutional sense under the Cabinet 
system of Government. The reasons are th\!se. It is the 
satisfaction of the Council of Ministers on whose aid and 
advice the President or the Governor generally exercises 
all his powers and functions. Neither Article 77(3) nor Article 
166(3) provides for any delegation of power. Both Articles 
77(3) and 166(3) provide that the President under Article 
77(3) and the Governor under Article 166(3) shall make 
rules for the more convenient transactions of the business 
of the Government and the allocation of business among
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. v. Z.U. ANSARI 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.] 
the ministers of the said business. The rules of business 
and the allocation among the Ministers of the said business 
all indicate that the decision of any Minister or officer under 
the rules of busine,ss make under these two Articles viz., 
Article 77(3) in the case of the President and Article 166(3) 
in the case of the Governor of the State is the decision of 
the President or the Governor respectively." 
Further, in reference to Article 311 of the Constitution, it was held 
as under: 
"The theory that only the President or the Governor is 
personally to exercise pleasure of dismissing or removing a 
public servant is repelled by express words in Article 311 
that .no person who is a member of the Civil service or 
holds a civil post under the Union 'or a State shall be dismissed 
or removed by authority subordinate to that by which he 
was appointed. The words "dismissed or removed by an 
authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed" 
indicate that the pleasure of the President or the Governor 
. is exercised by such officers on whom the President or the 
Governor confers or delegates power." 
(emphasis laid by this Court) 
16. Similarly, in the case of State ojlJiliar v. Rani Sonabati 
Kumar, the issue was: 
"whether it was an order made by the Governor or by 
983 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
someone duly authorised by him in that behalf within Art. 
F 
154( I). Even assuming that the order did not originate
from 
the Governor personally, it avails the State nothing because 
the Governor remains responsible for the action of his 
subordinates taken in his name." 
Thus, while the fact that the powers may be delegated is not in 
G 
dispute, what is essential to establish is that the delegation has infact 
taken place. Further, it is also essential to establish that what has been 
delegated is the relevant power under the relevant rule for the purpose. 
8 AIR 1961 SC 221 
H
984 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
Delegation of power for one purpose cannot be understood to mean a 
delegation of power for all other purposes as well. 
17. In the case of Godavari Sliamrao Paru/ekar v. State of 
Maharashtra9, a Constitution Bench of this Court was contemplating 
the power of delegation under the Defence oflndia Rules, 1962. While 
B 
deciding the power of allocation of the Governor, it was held as under: 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
"Allocation of business under Art. 166(2) of the Constitution 
is not made with reference to particular laws which may 
be in force at the time the allocation is made; it is made 
with reference to the three lists of the Seventh Schedule to 
the Constitution, for the executive power of the center and 
the State together extends to matters with respect to which 
Parliament and the Legislature of a State may make laws. 
Therefore, when allocation of business is made it is made 
with reference to the three Lists in the Seventh Schedule 
and thus the allocation in the Rules of Business provides 
for all contingencies which may arise for the exercise of 
the executive power. Such allocation may be made even in 
advance of legislation made by Parliament to be available 
whenever Parliaments makes legislation conferring power 
on a State Government with respect to matters in List I of 
the Seventh Schedule. It was therefore in our opinion not 
necessary that there should have been an allocation made 
by the Governor under Art.
166(3) of the power to detain 
under the Defence of India Ordinance, Act and Rules after 
they W,!!re passed; it will be enough ifthe allocation of the 
subject to which the Defence oflndia Ordinance, Act and 
Rules refer has been made with reference to the three Lists 
in the Seven Schedule and if such allocation already exists, 
it may be taken advantage of if and when laws are passed. 
Preventive detention is provided for in List I, item 9, for 
reasons connected with defence, foreign affairs and the 
security of India, and in item 3 of List III for reasons 
connected with the security of a State, the maintenance of 
public order, or the maintenance of supplies and services 
··~ essential to the community. The allocation of business made_ 
under Art. 166 is in pursuance of these entries in the three 
H 
. 9 AIR 1964 SC 1128
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. v. Z.U. ANSARI 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]. 
List in the Seventh Schedule and would be available to be 
used whenever any law relating to these entries is made 
and power is conferred on the State Government to act 
under that law. The contention of the appellants that fresh 
allocation should have been made under Art. 166(3) by the 
Governor after the passing of the Defence of India 
Ordinance, Act and Rules must therefore fail." 
(emphasis laid by this Court) 
From a perusal of the above extract, it bec.omes clear that even in 
985 
A 
B 
the aforesaid case, this Court was concerned only with the executive 
exercise of power under Article 166 (3) of the Constitution. Thus, these c 
cases have no bearing on the fact situation in the instant case, as they 
dealt with executive exercise of power by the Governor. The question in 
the case on hand is the statutory exercise of power under Regulation 
351-Aofthe Civil Services Regulations, framed under Article 309 of the 
Constitution oflndia. 
18. In the absence of any evidence on record to show that the 
Governor had delegated his power to the concerned Minister under 
Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations, 1975 to accord 
sanction, the sanction granted by the Minister in charge cannot be said 
to be a valid sanction and sustained in law. The same is liable to be set 
aside and accordingly is set aside. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed. 
ORDER 
1. Hon 'hie the Chief Justice pronounced the
judgment on behalf 
of himself, allowing the appeal in terms of the signed reportable judgment. 
D 
E 
2. Hon 'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda pronounced separate 
F 
judgment, disagreeing with the views expressed by Hon'ble the Chief 
Justice and dismissed the appeal. 
3. In view of the difference of opinion, the Registry is directed to 
place the matter before Hon 'ble the Chief Justice, so that an appropriate 
Bench could be constituted for hearing the matter. 
G 
Kiilpana K. T~ipat)ly 
Matter referred to larger .bench. 
H