KULDEEP SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very clear and categorical as well as an unequivocal and unambiguous provision of law has unnecessarily been made the subject matter of the controversy in this petition challenging an innocuous order passed by the learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal. On 9th June, 2006 the Tribunal while calling for replies from the respondents had directed that if the reply was not filed, it would consider the issue of grant of interim direction. It is this order which is under challenge in this petition.

(2.) WE see no reason as to why this Court should interfere in the aforesaid order especially when the State Government while invoking its revisional jurisdiction under Rule 29 of the CCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 has issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the proposed penalty of removal from service should not be imposed against him. We have seen Rule 29 (supra) and very firmly feel that the State Government in this case has the revisional power and jurisdiction to pass an appropriate order confirming, modifying or setting aside the order passed by the lower authority as well as pass an order for enhancement of the penalty imposed by the lower authority.

(3.) THE argument of Mr. Bhushan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the word "Governor" used in Rule 29 (supra) in so far as its application to the State Government is concerned, should be construed as the Governor personally i.e. the person of the Governor and that this power cannot be exercised by the Principal Secretary, Government of Himachal Pradesh. This argument appears to be an argument of despair because it is very well understood and accepted that, under the scheme of part VI of the Constitution, especially Article 166 read with Articles 154 and 162 it is clearly stipulated and prescribed that even though all executive actions of the Government of a State shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the Governor yet all such actions shall be taken in accordance with the rules framed for more convenient transaction of the business of the Government of the State. It is under these Rules of Business of the Government that the Principal Secretary (IPH), Government of H.P. is exercising the powers of the State Government (read the Governor) while invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the Government under Rule 29 (supra). No fault at all can be found with the legitimate exercise of the aforesaid power by the State Government through its Principal Secretary.