{"id":91421,"date":"1962-03-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1962-03-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachhittar-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-7-march-1962-2"},"modified":"2015-01-23T03:38:30","modified_gmt":"2015-01-22T22:08:30","slug":"bachhittar-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-7-march-1962-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachhittar-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-7-march-1962-2","title":{"rendered":"Bachhittar Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 7 March, 1962"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Bachhittar Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 7 March, 1962<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 395, \t\t 1962 SCR Supl. (3) 713<\/div>\n
Author: M R.<\/div>\n
Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Subbarao, K., Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala, Mudholkar, J.R., Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nBACHHITTAR  SINGH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF PUNJAB\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n07\/03\/1962\n\nBENCH:\nMUDHOLKAR, J.R.\nBENCH:\nMUDHOLKAR, J.R.\nAIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)\nSUBBARAO, K.\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\n\nCITATION:\n 1963 AIR  395\t\t  1962 SCR  Supl. (3) 713\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1964 SC  72\t (50,57)\n R\t    1964 SC1823\t (4,26,27)\n R\t    1965 SC 596\t (11)\n RF\t    1967 SC 459\t (17)\n D\t    1969 SC 323\t (9)\n RF\t    1970 SC 214\t (13,14)\n D\t    1977 SC 629\t (15)\n R\t    1979 SC 220\t (21)\n RF\t    1980 SC 383\t (3)\n D\t    1984 SC1271\t (27)\n F\t    1987 SC 331\t (40)\n F\t    1987 SC1554\t (17,29)\n RF\t    1988 SC 782\t (45)\n\n\nACT:\nPublic\t    Servant-Disciplinary       Proceeding-Dismissal-\n--Appeal-Minister   passing   order   on   file-Order\t not\ncommunicated-Whether  binding-If order can  be\tvaried-Chief\nMinister passing final order--Validity-Rules of Business  of\nPunjab\tGovernment, rr. 4, 8, 25, 28-Constitution  of  India\nArts.166, 311.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe appellant was appointed a qanungo in Pepsu and latter as\nAssistant  Consolidation  Officer.  Complaints\thaving\tbeen\nreceived  against  him, an enquiry was held as a  result  of\nwhich  he was dismissed by the Revenue\tSecretary.   Against\nthis  order he preferred an appeal to the State\t Government.\nThe Revenue Minister Pepsu wrote on the file 'chat dismissal\nwould  be  too\thard and instead he should  be\treverted  as\nqanungo but no written order to that effect was served\tupon\nthe  appellant.\t  After\t merger of Pepsu  with\tPunjab,\t the\nRevenue\t Minister  Punjab  sent up the\tfile  to  the  Chief\nMinister  with\tthe remarks \"C.M. may kindly  advise\".\t The\nChief  Minister passed the order confirming  the  dismissal.\nand  the order was duly communicated to the appellant.\t The\nappellant challenged the order of the Chief Minister  Punjab\non  the ground that the Chief Minister Punjab could not\t sit\nin  review  on the order of the Revenue Minister  Pepsu\t and\nthat  the Chief Minister was not competent to deal with\t the\nmatter\tas  it\tpertained to the portfolio  of\tthe  Revenue\nMinister.\nHeld, that the order of the Revenue Minister Pepsu could not\namount\tto  an order by the State Government unless  it\t was\nexpressed  in  the name of Rajpramukh as  required  by\tArt.\n166(1) of the Constitution and was then communicated to\t the\nappellant.  Until the order was so communicated it was\tonly\nof  a provisional character and could be  reconsidered\tover\nand ever again.\t Before communication the order was  binding\nneither on the appellant nor on the State Government.\nState of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukdev Singh A.I.R.<\/a> (1961) 2 S.C.R.\n3 71 referred to.\n714\nHeld,\tfurther,   that\t the  Chief  Minister\tPunjab\t was\ncompetent  to  deal with the appeal and to  pass  the  order\nwhich  he did.\tUnder r. 25 of the Rules of Business of\t the\nPunjab\t   Government the matter undoubtedly related to\t the\nportfolio  of  the Revenue Minister.  But  since  tinder  r.\n28(1)(ii) and (xix) which     provide\tthat cases     involving\nquestions      of policy and  cases\tof   administrative\nimportance and such other cases or classes of cases as\t the\nChief  Minister may consider necessary shall be referred  to\nthe  Chief Minister, the case was properly referred  to\t the\nChief  Minister.  Under r. 4 the order passed by  the  Chief\nMinister,  even though it pertained to the portfolio of\t the\nRevenue\t Minister,  would be deemed to be an  order  of\t the\nCouncil\t of  Ministers.\t  It would be  the  Chief  Ministers\nadvice\tto the Governor, for which the Council of  Ministers\nWould  be collectively responsible and action taken  thereon\nwould be the action of the Government.\nDepartmental proceedings cannot be divided into two parts  :\n(i) enquiry and (ii) taking of action ; there is one  conti-\nnuous  proceeding though there are two stages.\t Any  action\ndecided\t to be taken against a public servant  found  guilty\nmisconduct  is\ta judicial order and as such  it  cannot  be\nvaried at-the will of the authority.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 155 of 1961.
\nAppeal\tby  the special leave from the\tjudgment  and  order
\ndated  January\t5, 1959, of the Punjab High Court  in  Civil
\nWrit Application No. 460 of 1957.\n<\/p>\n
     I. M. Lal, and M. L. Aggarwal, for the appellant.
\nS. M. Sikri, Advocate-General for the State of Punjab, N. S.
\nBindra and P. D. Menon, for the respondents.
\n1962.  March 7. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nMUDHOLKAR, J.-This is an appeal by special leave against the
\njudgment of the Punjab High Court dismissing the  appellants
\npetition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
 715<\/span><\/p>\n
The appellant was appointed a qanungo in the former State of
\nPEPSU  in  the\tyear  1950.  On\t December  1,  1953  he\t was
\nappointed   Assistant\tConsolidation\tOfficer.     Certain
\ncomplaints  having  been received regarding  tampering\twith
\nofficial  records he was suspended and an enquiry  was\theld
\nagainst\t him by the Revenue Secretary of  PEPSU\t Government.
\nAs a result of that enquiry the Revenue Secretary  dismissed
\nhim  by order dated August 30, 1956, on the ground that\t the
\nappellant was not above board and was not fit to be retained
\nin  service.   “”his  order was\t duly  communicated  to\t the
\nappellant.   Thereupon\tthe appellant  preferred  an  appeal
\nbefore the State Government.\n<\/p>\n
It would appear that he had submitted an advance copy of his
\nappeal\tto the Revenue Minister of PEPSU who called for\t the
\nrecords\t of  the case immediately.  After perusing  them  he
\nwrote  on  the file that the charges against  the  appellant
\nwere  serious and that they were proved.  He  also  observed
\nthat  it was necessary to stop the evil with a strong  band.
\nHe,  however-, expressed the opinion that as  the  appellant
\nwas  a\trefugee and bad a family to support,  his  dismissal
\nwould  be  too\thard  and that\tinstead\t of  dismissing\t him
\noutright  he  should  be reverted to his  original  post  of
\nqanungo\t and warned that if be does not behave\tproperly  in
\nfuture he will be dealt with severely.\tOn the next day\t the
\nState of PEPSU merged in the State of Punjab.
\nAccording  to the appellant the aforesaid remarks amount  to
\nan  order of the State Government and that they were  orally
\ncommunicated to him by the Revenue Minister.  This is denied
\non behalf of the State.\t It is, however, common ground\tthat
\nthe aforesaid remarks or order, whatever they be, were never
\ncommunicated officially to the appellant.
\n    After the merger of PEPSU with the State of
\n716<\/span>
\nPunjab\tthe file was put up before the Revenue\tMinister  of
\nPunjab,\t Mr.Darbara  Singh.   On  December  1\/4,  1956,\t Mr.
\nDarbara\t Singh\tremarked on the file “Serious  charges\thave
\nbeen  proved  by the Revenue Secretary and  Shri  Bachhittar
\nSingh  was  dismissed.\tI would like the  Secretary  i\/c  to
\ndiscuss the case personally on 5th December, 1956.” Then  on
\nApril  2\/8,  1957 the Minister noted on the file  “C.M.\t may
\nkindly advise.” With this remark the file went up before the
\nChief Minister, Punjab, who on April 16\/18, 1957, passed  an
\norder, the concluding portion of which reads thus :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Having  regard to the gravity of the  charges
\n\t      proved against this official, I am  definitely
\n\t      of the opinion that his dismissal from service
\n\t      is a correct punishment and no leniency should
\n\t      be  shown to him merely on the ground  of\t his
\n\t      being  a displaced person or having  a’  large
\n\t      family to support.  In the circumstances,\t the
\n\t      order of dismissal should stand.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This order was communicated to the appellant on May 1, 1957.
\nThereafter  he\tpreferred  petition under Art.\t226  of\t the
\nConstitution which, as already stated, was dismissed by\t the
\nPunjab High Court.\n<\/p>\n
The   validity\tof  the\t order\tof  the\t Revenue   Secretary
\ndismissing the appellant was not challenged before us.\t The
\npoint  urged  before  us is that the order  of\tthe  Revenue
\nMinister  of  the PEPSU having reduced the  punishment\tfrom
\ndismissal  to reversion, the Chief Minister of Punjab  could
\nnot  sit  in review over that order and set it\taside.\t Two
\ngrounds\t are urged in support of this point.  The  first  is
\nthat  the  order of the Revenue Minister of  PEPSU  was\t the
\norder  of the State Government and was not open\t to  review.
\nThe second ground is that in any case it was not within\t the
\ncompetence of the Chief Minister of Punjab to deal with\t the
\nmatter
\n 717<\/span>
\ninasmuch  as  it pertained to the portfolio of\tthe  Revenue
\nMinister.\n<\/p>\n
Before we’ deal with the grounds we may state that the\tHigh
\nCourt was of the opinion that proceedings taken against\t the
\nappellant were made up of two parts : (a) the enquiry (which
\ninvolved a decision of the question whether the\t allegations
\nmade against the appellant were true or not) and (b)  taking
\naction (i.e., in case the allegations were found to be true,
\nwhether the appellant should be punished or not and if so in
\nwhat  manner.) According to the High Court the\tfirst  point
\ninvolved a decision on the evidence and may in its nature be
\ndescribed  as  judicial\t while\tthe  latter  was  purely  an
\nadministrative\tdecision  and  that in so far  as  this\t was
\nconcerned  there was no reason why the State Government\t was
\nincompetent   to   change  its\tdecision  “if\tit   thought
\nadministratively advisable to do so”.  We cannot accept\t the
\nview taken by the High Court regarding the nature of what it
\ncalls  the  second part of  the\t proceedings.\tDepartmental
\nproceedings  taken  against  a Government  servant  are\t not
\ndivisible  in the sense in which the High Court\t understands
\nthem to be.  There is just one continuous proceeding  though
\nthere  are  two\t stages in it.\tThe first  is  coming  to  a
\nconclusion on the evidence as to whether the charges alleged
\nagainst\t the Government servant are established or  not\t and
\nthe  second is reached only if it is found that they are  so
\nestablished.   That stage deals with the action to be  taken
\nagainst\t the Government servant concerned.  The\t High  Court
\naccepts\t that the first stage is a judicial  proceeding\t and
\nindeed\tit  must be so because charges have  to\t be  framed,
\nnotice\thas to be given and the person concerned has  to  be
\ngiven  an  opportunity of being heard.\tEven so far  as\t the
\nsecond\tstage is concerned Art. 311(2) of  the\tConstitution
\nrequires  a notice to be given to the person  concerned’  as
\nalso an opportunity of being heard.\n<\/p>\n
718<\/span><\/p>\n
Therefore, this stage of the proceeding is no less  judicial
\nthan the earlier one.  Consequently any action\t  decided to
\nbe  taken  against  a Government  servant  found  guilty  of
\nmisconduct,  is\t a judicial order and as such it  cannot  be
\nvaried\tat  the will of the authority who  is  empowered  to
\nimpose\tthe punishment.\t Indeed, the very object with  which
\nnotice is required to be given on the question of punishment
\nis to ensure that it will be such as would be justified upon
\nthe  charges  established  and\tupon  the  other   attendant
\ncircumstances  of the case.  It is thus wholly erroneous  to
\ncharacterise  the  taking of action against a  person  found
\nguilty\tof  any\t chargo\t at a  departmental  enquiry  as  an
\nadministrative order.\n<\/p>\n
What  we  have\tnow to consider is the effect  of  the\tnote
\nrecorded by the Revenue Minister of PEPSU upon the file.  We
\nwill  assume  for  the purpose of this case that  it  is  an
\norder.\t Even so the question is whether it can be  regarded
\nas  the\t order\tof  the State  Government  which  alone,  as
\nadmitted by the appellant, was competent to hear and  decide
\nan  appeal  from the order of the Revenue  Secretary.\tArt.
\n166(1)\tof  the\t Constitution requires\tthat  all  executive
\naction\tof the Government of a State shall be  expressed  in
\nthe  name of the Governor.  Clause (2) of Art. 166  provides
\nfor the authentication of orders and other instruments\tmade
\nand  executed  in the name of the Governor.  Clause  (3)  of
\nthat Article enables the Governor to make rules for the more
\nconvenient transaction of the business of the Government and
\nfor the allocation among the Ministers of the said business.
\nWhat the appellant calls an order of the State Government is
\nadmittedly not expressed to be in the name of the  Governor.
\nBut with that point we shall deal later.  What we must first
\nascertain is whether the order of the Revenue Minister is an
\norder  of  the State Government i.e., of the  Governor.\t  In
\nthis
\n\t\t\t    719<\/span>
\nconnection we may refer to r. 25 of the Rules of Business of
\nthe Government of PEPSU which reads thus :\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  “Except as otherwise provided by any other
\n\t      Rule, cases shall ordinarily be disposed of by
\n\t      or   under  the  authority  of  the   Minister
\n\t      incharge\twho may by means of standing  orders
\n\t      give such directions as he thinks fit for\t the
\n\t      disposal\tof cases in the Department.   Copies
\n\t      of  such standing orders shall be sent to\t the
\n\t      Rajpramukh and the Chief Minister.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
According  to learned counsel for the appellant\t his  appeal
\npertains  to  the  department which was\t in  charge  of\t the
\nRevenue Minister and, therefore, he could deal with it.\t His
\ndecision  and order would according to him, be the  decision
\nand  order of the State Government.  On behalf of the  State
\nreliance  was, however, placed on r. 34 which required\tcer-
\ntain classes of cases to be submitted to the Rajpramukh\t and
\nthe  Chief Minister before the issue of orders.\t But it\t was
\nconceded  during the course of the argument that a  case  of
\nthe kind before us does not fall within that rule.  No other
\nprovision  bearing on the point having been brought  to\t our
\nnotice\twe would, therefore, hold that the Revenue  Minister
\ncould make an order on behalf’ of the State Government.
\nThe question, therefore, is whether he did in fact make such
\nan  order.   Merely writing something on the file  does\t not
\namount to an order.  Before something amounts to an order of
\nthe  State Government two things are necessary.\t  The  order
\nhas to be expressed in the name of the Governor as  required
\nby  cl. (1) of Art. 166 and then it has to be  communicated.
\nAs already indicated, no formal order modifying the decision
\nof the Revenue Secretary was ever made.\t Until such an order
\nis drawn up the State Government cannot, in our opinion, be
\n720<\/span>
\nregarded as bound by what was stated in the file.  As  along
\nas  the\t matter rested with him the Revenue  Minister  could
\nwell score out his remarks or minutes on the file and  write
\nfresh ones.\n<\/p>\n
The  business  of  State  is  a\t complicated  one  and\t has
\nnecessarily  to be conducted through the agency of  a  large
\nnumber\tof  officials and  authorities.\t  The  constitution,
\ntherefore, requires and so did the Rules of Business  framed
\nby the Rajpramukh of PEPSU provide, that the action must  be
\ntaken  by  the authority concerned in the name of  the\tRaj-
\npramukh.  It is not till this formality is observed that the
\naction can be regarded as that of the State or here, by\t the
\nRajpramukh.   We may further observe that,  constitutionally
\nspeaking,  the Minister is no more than an adviser and\tthat
\nthe  head of the State, the Governor or Rajpramukh,*  is  to
\nact  with  the aid and advice of his Council  of  Ministers.
\nTherefore,  until  such advice is accepted by  the  Governor
\nwhatever the Minister or the Council of Ministers may say in
\nregard to a particular matter does not become the action  of
\nthe  State until the advice of the Council of  Ministers  is
\naccepted or deemed to be accepted by the Head of the  State.
\nIndeed,\t it  is possible that after expressing\tone  opinion
\nabout  a particular matter at a particular stage a  Minister
\nor  the Council of Ministers may express quite\ta  different
\nopinion, one which may be completely opposed to the  earlier
\nopinion.   Which of them can be regarded as the\t “order’  of
\nthe State Government?  Therefore to make the opinion  amount
\nto  a decision of the Government it must be communicated  to
\nthe  person concerned.\tIn this connection we may quote\t the
\nfollowing  from the judgment of this Court in the  State  of
\nPunjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh<\/a> (1).\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Mr.   Gopal  Singh attempted  to\t argue\tthat
\n\t      before the final order was passed the Council
\n*Till  the abolition of that office by the Amendment of\t the
\nConstitution in 1956.\n<\/p>\n
(1)  [1961] 2 S.C.R. 371. 409.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    721<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      of Ministers had decided to accept the respon-
\n\t      dent’s  representation and to  reinstate\thim,
\n\t      and  that,  according to him,  the  respondent
\n\t      seeks  to\t prove by calling the  two  original
\n\t      orders.\tWe  are unable\tto  understand\tthis
\n\t      argument.\t  Even if the Council  of  Ministers
\n\t      had  provisionally  decided to  reinstate\t the
\n\t      respondent that would not prevent the  Council
\n\t      from reconsidering the matter and coming to  a
\n\t      contrary\tconclusion later on, until  a  final
\n\t      decision is reached by them and is  communica-
\n\t      ted  to the Rajpramukh in the form  of  advice
\n\t      and  acted upon by him by issuing an order  in
\n\t      that behalf to the respondent.”\n<\/p>\n
Thus  it  is  of  the  essence that  the  order\t has  to  be
\ncommunicated  to  the person who would be affected  by\tthat
\norder before the State and that person can be bound by\tthat
\norder.\t For, until the order is communicated to the  person
\naffected by it, it would be open to the Council of Ministers
\nto  consider the matter over and over again and,  therefore,
\ntill  its  communication  the order cannot  be\tregarded  as
\nanything more than provisional in character.
\nWe  are, therefore, of the opinion that the remarks  or\t the
\norder of the Revenue Minister, PEPSU are of no avail to\t the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
Now as regards the next contention, Learned counsel for\t the
\nappellant contends that since his appeal was not decided  by
\nthe Revenue Minister of Punjab, Mr. Darbara Singh but by the
\nChief\tMinister  Mr.  Pratap  Singh  Kairon,  who  bad\t  no
\njurisdiction  to deal with it, the appeal must be deemed  to
\nbe  still pending.  In this connection he relied upon r.  18
\nof  the Rules of Business framed by the Governor  of  Punjab
\nwhich corresponds to r.\t 25 of the PEPSU rules, which  reads
\nthus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “‘Except\tas otherwise provided by  any  other
\n\t      Rule., cases shall ordinarily be disposed
\n\t      722<\/span>
\n\t      of by or under the authority of the  Minister-
\n\t      in-charge who may, by means of standing orders
\n\t      give such directions as he thinks fit for\t the
\n\t      disposal\tof cases in the Department.   Copies
\n\t      of  such standing orders shall be sent to\t the
\n\t      Chief Minister and the Governor.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Now,  unquestionably  the  matter here did  pertain  to\t the
\nportfolio  of the Revenue Minister.  But it was\t he  himself
\nwho,  after  seeing  the  file submitted  it  to  the  Chief
\nMinister  for  advice.\tLearned counsel,  however,  contends
\nthat  the  Chief Minister could, therefore,  only  give\t him
\nadvice and not asurp the jurisdiction\t of   the    Revenue
\nMinister and decide the\t case  himself.\t But  this  argument
\nignores r.28 (1)    of\tthe  Punjab Rules of  Business,\t the
\nrelevant portions of which run thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “28  (1) The following classes of cases  shall
\n\t      be submitted to the Chief Minister before\t the
\n\t      issue of orders :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      x\t\t\tx\t\t   x\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)  Cases  raising questions of\t policy\t and
\n\t      Cases of administrative importance not already
\n\t      covered by the Schedule.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      x\t\t\tx\t\t  x\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (vii) Proposals,\tfor the\t prosecutions,\tdis-
\n\t      missal,  removal or compulsory  retirement  of
\n\t      any gazetted officer.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      x\t\t\tx\t\t  x
\n\t      (xix) Such other cases or classes of cases  as
\n\t      the chief Minister may consider necessary.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The learned Advocate-General contends that the case would be
\ncovered\t by  every one of these clauses.   In  our  opinion,
\ncl.(vii) cannot assist him because it is not the  contention
\nof the State that the appellant is a gazetted officer.\t We,
\nhowever, think that
\n\t\t\t    723<\/span>
\ncl.  (ii) would certainly entitle the Chief Minister to\t paw
\nan  order of the kind which he has made here.  The  question
\nto  be considered was whether though grave charges had\tbeen
\nproved against an official he should be removed from service
\nforthwith  or merely reduced in rank.\tThat  unquestionably
\nraises\ta question of policy which would affect\t many  cases
\nall  and  the departments of the  State-The  Chief  Minister
\nwould, therefore, have been within his rights to call up the
\nfile of his own accord and pass orders thereon.\t Of  course,
\nthe  rule  does\t not say that the Chief\t Minister  would  be
\nentitled to pass orders but when it says that he is entitled
\nto  call for the file before the issue of orders it  clearly
\nimplies\t  that\the  has a right to interfere and  make\tsuch
\norder\t  as  he thinks appropriate.  Finally there  is\t cl.
\n(xix)\t  which\t confers  a wide discretion upon  the  Chief
\nMinister  to  call for any file and deal  with\tit  himself.
\nApart  from  that  we  may refer to r. 4  of  the  Rules  of
\nBusiness of the Punjab Government, which reads thus :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The Council shall be collectively responsible
\n\t      for all executive orders issued in the name of
\n\t      the  Governor in accordance with\tthese  Rules
\n\t      whether  such  orders  are  authorised  by  an
\n\t      individual Minister on a matter pertaining  to
\n\t      his  portfolio or as the result of  discussion
\n\t      it  a  meeting of the  Council,  or  howsoever
\n\t      otherwise.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Thus the  order passed by the Chief Minister  even though it
\nis  on a matter pertaining to the portfolio of\tthe  Revenue
\nMinister,  will be deemed to be an order of the\t Council  of
\nMinisters.   So\t deemed\t its contents  would  be  the  Chief
\nMinister’s advice to the Governor, for which the Council  of
\nMinisters  would  be collectively responsible.\t The  action
\ntaken thereon in pursuance of r. 8 of the Rules of  Business
\nmade by the Governor under Art. 166(3) of the Constitution
\n724<\/span>
\nwould  then be the action of the Government.  Here  one\t (if
\nthe  Under Secretaries to the Government of Punjab  informed
\nthe  appellant\tby his letter dated May, 1,  1957  that\t his
\nrepresentation “had been considered and rejected”, evidently
\nby  the State Government.  This would show that\t appropriate
\naction had been taken under the relevant rule.
\nThe  appeal is thus without substance and is dismissed.\t  In
\nview  of the fact that the appellant is a  displaced  person
\nwith  heavy  responsibilities and with limited\tor  possibly
\nhardly any means we direct that the costs shall be borne  by
\nthe parties concerned.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t       ____________________<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Bachhittar Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 7 March, 1962 Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 395, 1962 SCR Supl. (3) 713 Author: M R. Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Subbarao, K., Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala, Mudholkar, J.R., Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama PETITIONER: BACHHITTAR SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF PUNJAB DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/03\/1962 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-91421","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBachhittar Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 7 March, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachhittar-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-7-march-1962-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bachhittar Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 7 March, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachhittar-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-7-march-1962-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1962-03-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-22T22:08:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachhittar-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-7-march-1962-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachhittar-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-7-march-1962-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bachhittar Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 7 March, 1962\",\"datePublished\":\"1962-03-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-22T22:08:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachhittar-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-7-march-1962-2\"},\"wordCount\":3024,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachhittar-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-7-march-1962-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachhittar-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-7-march-1962-2\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachhittar-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-7-march-1962-2\",\"name\":\"Bachhittar Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 7 March, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1962-03-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-22T22:08:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachhittar-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-7-march-1962-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachhittar-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-7-march-1962-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachhittar-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-7-march-1962-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bachhittar Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 7 March, 1962\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bachhittar Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 7 March, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachhittar-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-7-march-1962-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bachhittar Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 7 March, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachhittar-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-7-march-1962-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1962-03-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-22T22:08:30+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachhittar-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-7-march-1962-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachhittar-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-7-march-1962-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bachhittar Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 7 March, 1962","datePublished":"1962-03-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-22T22:08:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachhittar-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-7-march-1962-2"},"wordCount":3024,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachhittar-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-7-march-1962-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachhittar-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-7-march-1962-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachhittar-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-7-march-1962-2","name":"Bachhittar Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 7 March, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1962-03-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-22T22:08:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachhittar-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-7-march-1962-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachhittar-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-7-march-1962-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachhittar-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-7-march-1962-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bachhittar Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 7 March, 1962"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91421","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=91421"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91421\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=91421"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=91421"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=91421"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}