A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE
In D. S. Garewal v. The State of Punjab & Another, the Supreme Court of India addressed the constitutional validity of the All India Services Act, 1951 and the subsequent rules framed thereunder. The core dispute involved whether the President exceeded his powers under Article 392 by omitting a condition precedent under Article 312, whether the provisional Parliament was competent to enact the statute, and whether the delegation of rule-making authority to the Central Government under Section 3 of the Act was excessive. The appellant, a member of the Indian Police Service, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Punjab Government, raising questions regarding the competence of State Governments to institute such inquiries under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Act and the Rules, ruling that the President acted within his transitional powers under Article 392, that Parliament’s delegation of rule-making was valid, and that State Governments had authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against members of the All India Services posted under them.
Keywords: All India Services Act 1951, Constitutional Validity, Article 392, Article 312, Delegation of Powers, Rule-Making Authority, Disciplinary Proceedings, Federal Structure, Administrative Law, Supreme Court of India.
B) CASE DETAILS
i) Judgement Cause Title
D. S. Garewal v. The State of Punjab & Another
ii) Case Number
Civil Appeal No. 426 of 1958
iii) Judgement Date
11 December 1958
iv) Court
Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum
S. R. Das (C.J.), S. K. Das, P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. N. Wanchoo, M. Hidayatullah, JJ.
vi) Author
Justice K. N. Wanchoo
vii) Citation
AIR 1959 SC 512; [1959] Supp. (1) SCR 792
viii) Legal Provisions Involved
-
Article 312 of the Constitution of India
-
Article 392 of the Constitution of India
-
Section 3 and 4 of All India Services Act, 1951 (Act LXI of 1951)
-
Rule 5 of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955
-
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any)
None
x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects
Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, Service Law
C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT
The constitutional scheme envisioned under Article 312 permits the creation of All India Services subject to certain procedural preconditions. Among these was the requirement for a two-thirds majority resolution of the Council of States (Rajya Sabha), signaling federal consent for central encroachment on state administrative domains. However, during India’s constitutional transition, the President issued the Constitution (Removal of Difficulties) Order No. II, 1950 under Article 392, temporarily omitting the Council of States’ resolution requirement due to the absence of a bicameral legislature. This facilitated the passage of the All India Services Act, 1951 by the provisional Parliament. The present case arose from the disciplinary proceedings initiated against D. S. Garewal, an Indian Police Service officer, by the Punjab Government under the Act and Rules framed thereunder.
D) FACTS OF THE CASE
The appellant, D. S. Garewal, joined the Indian Police Service on 1 October 1949. By 1957, he served as Superintendent of Police in Punjab. Subsequently, in August 1957, the State Government reverted him to the post of Assistant Superintendent of Police. In March 1958, the Punjab Government informed him that it intended to proceed against him under Rule 5 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, framed under Section 3 of the All India Services Act, 1951.
Following his suspension under Rule 7, the Government appointed K. L. Bhudiraja, IAS, as the enquiry officer. Upon receiving the enquiry notice in July 1958, the appellant approached the Punjab High Court under Article 226 challenging:
-
The constitutional validity of the Act
-
The legality of the enquiry proceedings.
The High Court dismissed his writ petition. The appellant’s subsequent application for a certificate of appeal was rejected, after which he sought and obtained special leave to appeal from the Supreme Court.
E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
i) Whether the President exceeded powers under Article 392 by omitting the Council of States’ resolution requirement from Article 312.
ii) Whether the provisional Parliament was competent to enact the All India Services Act, 1951.
iii) Whether the Rules framed in 1955 were ultra vires once the temporary removal of conditions under Article 312 lapsed.
iv) Whether Parliament could validly delegate rule-making powers under Article 312 to the Central Government.
v) Whether the delegation under Section 3 of the Act amounted to excessive delegation and thus unconstitutional.
vi) Whether the Punjab Government had competence to initiate disciplinary proceedings under the Rules.
F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that
The President, while acting under Article 392, unlawfully amended Article 312. The petitioner argued that mere adaptations could not alter substantive constitutional provisions such as the requirement of Council of States’ resolution. The deletion amounted to an unconstitutional exercise of power. They relied on Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India and State of Bihar, [1952] SCR 89, arguing that adaptations must preserve essential legislative safeguards like special majorities.
Secondly, the provisional Parliament lacked competence to enact the All India Services Act, 1951 since the Council of States’ resolution—a constitutional condition—had not been fulfilled due to its removal.
Thirdly, they argued that since the Constitution (Removal of Difficulties) Order had ceased upon full constitution of Parliament, any rules framed in 1955 were invalid and repugnant to the restored text of Article 312.
The petitioner further contended that Article 312 imposed a mandate requiring Parliament itself to legislate in full without delegation. Therefore, delegating authority to the Central Government under Section 3 of the Act was unconstitutional.
In the alternative, they argued that even if some delegation were permissible, Section 3 permitted excessive delegation, thereby rendering it invalid.
Lastly, the appellant argued that only the Central Government possessed authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings for higher penalties like dismissal, removal, or compulsory retirement under the Rules. The Punjab Government acted without jurisdiction in instituting the proceedings.
G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that
The President acted within his express authority under Article 392. The language permitted adaptations by way of modification, addition, or omission to facilitate the constitutional transition. The omission of the Council of States requirement from Article 312 was necessary and valid due to the provisional absence of the Council.
The provisional Parliament possessed full legislative competence under Article 312, as validly adapted. Therefore, enactment of the All India Services Act, 1951 did not suffer from any constitutional infirmity.
The Rules framed in 1955 drew their authority directly from the statute. Since the Act was a permanent enactment, the reappearance of the omitted language in Article 312 after the provisional Parliament ceased did not affect the legality of rules framed pursuant to the Act.
Delegation under Section 3 was constitutionally permissible. Citing Re Delhi Laws Act, 1912, [1951] SCR 747 and Rai Narain Singh v. Chairman, Patna Administration Committee, [1955] 1 SCR 290, they argued that Parliament could delegate subordinate legislative functions such as rule-making to the executive, provided it retained control through parliamentary oversight.
Furthermore, the delegation under Section 3 was not excessive since Section 4 incorporated existing rules and laid down clear policy, leaving only administrative details to the Central Government.
Lastly, they contended that Rule 5 authorized the State Government where the officer served to initiate proceedings regardless of the ultimate authority to impose higher penalties.
H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS
i)
I) JUDGEMENT
a. RATIO DECIDENDI
The Supreme Court dismissed all six grounds of challenge.
On Presidential Power under Article 392:
The Court held that Article 392 conferred wide authority to adapt constitutional provisions by way of modification, addition, or omission as necessary to address transitional difficulties. The President’s omission of the Council of States resolution from Article 312 was valid.
On Provisional Parliament’s Competence:
Since the adaptation validly removed the resolution requirement, the provisional Parliament was competent to enact the All India Services Act, 1951.
On Rule-making under Restored Article 312:
The reappearance of the condition precedent in Article 312 had no bearing on the validity of rules framed in 1955, as the enabling statute remained permanently valid.
On Delegation of Legislative Power:
Delegation to the executive was permissible. Parliament retained sufficient control by mandating prior consultation with States and requiring that rules be tabled in Parliament for modification or repeal.
On Excessive Delegation:
The Act incorporated existing rules by reference under Section 4, thereby articulating legislative policy. The Central Government’s rule-making power merely allowed modification of these existing rules within a well-defined policy framework.
On Punjab Government’s Competence:
Under Rule 5, the State Government where the officer served had authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings even when penalties fell within the jurisdiction of the Central Government.
b. OBITER DICTA
The Court emphasized that Articles 312 and 392 must be interpreted contextually, accounting for the extraordinary transitional circumstances prevailing at the commencement of the Constitution.
c. GUIDELINES
-
Presidential adaptations under Article 392 include power of omission if justified by transitional necessities.
-
Delegation of subordinate legislation is permissible so long as Parliament articulates policy and retains oversight.
-
Procedural rules under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules must be strictly followed by both State and Central authorities, delineating institutional responsibilities.
J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS
This case crystallized the interplay between constitutional transitional powers and federal administrative arrangements. The Supreme Court fortified the constitutionality of the All India Services institutional framework. It harmonized the President’s transitional adaptation powers with the enduring rule-making competencies of Parliament and the executive. The Court’s reasoning underscores the Indian constitutional structure’s flexibility in addressing complex federal-administrative dynamics, while preserving parliamentary sovereignty through oversight mechanisms. By upholding state-level initiation of inquiries, the judgment reinforced cooperative federalism and operational efficiency in public service regulation.
K) REFERENCES
a. Important Cases Referred
i) Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India and State of Bihar, [1952] SCR 89
ii) Re The Delhi Laws Act, 1912, [1951] SCR 747
iii) Rai Narain Singh v. Chairman, Patna Administration Committee, [1955] 1 SCR 290
b. Important Statutes Referred
i) The Constitution of India, Articles 312, 392, 226, 311
ii) The All India Services Act, 1951 (Act LXI of 1951), Sections 3 and 4
iii) All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, Rule 5
