K. N.SHUKLA NAVNIT LAL MANILAL BHAT AND A:\R. December 15. 1966 [K. SunBA RAO, c. J., J. c. SHAH, S. M. SiKRI, v. RA,fASWA,11 n A~D C. A. VAIOIAI.l~GAM JJ.j Code of Criminal Procedure (Act 5 o/ 1898), .r. 191-<.'/ass I/ rai/>rny ,Jflicer olfic;nting as Class I officer-Private conaplaint again.rt l1in1 under Y\'. 166 and 167 l.P.C.-Sanc1io11 uf Central Govenunent, if necessary. Rai/u·ay Board, if different fro111 Cerr1ral Gover111nent-Maxin1, qui facit per alium facit per se, scope of.
c The appellao1 was holding a subslanlive post as a Class II officer of the Western Railway. He \\'3S promoted to an officiating rosition as a Class I officer by the General Manager, with the ap.Proval o the Railway lloard, as per r. 134 of the Indian Railway Eslabhshmenl Code. While
he "-'3S officiating in that post. a private complaint was filed ag3inst him for offences under ss. 166 and 167, l.P.C. On the question whether ~anction of the President of India v.·as ncce .. – sary under s. 197, Criminal Procedure Code, for prosecuting him, HEl … D : The appellant \\·as not a public servant who was "not rcmov- ;1ble from his office s01vc by or ".-irh the sanction of the Central Govern· n1ent" v.•ithin the meaning of the section and, therefore, such sanction was n»l necessary. [292 C; ~96 G.H]
( 1) A Railway officer who merely officiates in Class I cannot be S3id lo belong to lhal Class within the meaning of llem I of Schedule IJ. referred lo in r. 1729 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules for Gazcl!ed Officers (Indian Railway Es1ahlishmen1 Code). He continues to he a Class 11 officer who could be remo\'cd from his office with the sanction of the Railway Board. [294 F-GJ
(2) Section 2 of the Railway Board Acl. 1905, indicates 1ha1 1he Railway Board is an entity separate from the Central Government and thal the powers of the Board are derived by delegation, either absolutely or subject IC' conditions, by the Central Government.
Therefore. the Railway Board is not a pan ot' 1hc Ccntr;1l Govcrn1ncnt. (~96 E-1:] (3) The appellant could not he deemed lo be removable only by or with the s.i.nctton of the Central Government on the basi! of the maxim qui faclL per aliunr facit P('r .\·e. For, once the Central Government ha~ delegated ii. power to the Railway Board with regard to the appointment and removal of a public servanl. then, for the purpose of s. 197, Cr.P.C .. the public servant concerned
,~·ill not be treated as one .. not removable f:om his office except by or \\·i1h the sanction of the Central Govern~ 1. •nl. .. [297 A-CJ Af;.c/11r Rahman v. The King. [1943] F.C.R. 7. applied.
( 4) The Nole lo r. 1704. :on<l r. 1705, would nol apply lo lhe appellant, as the firs! applies only to non-gazelled officers. and the ~..:cond came into force on Isl Augu~t 1961, after the complaint against "hini was filed. [295 B. DJ
K. N. SHUKLA .v. NAVNIT LAL (Ramaswami, J.) CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 1965. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the July 29, 1964 of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 386 of 1963.
B. Sen, R. Ganapathy Iyer and R. H. Dhebar, for appellant. M. K. Ramamurthi, for respondent No. I. R. H. Dhebar, for respondent No. 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought, by special leave, from the judgment of the· High Court of Gujarat dated July 29, 1964 in Criminal Revision No. 385 of 1963.
On March 14, 1961 respondent No. 1 filed a complaint against the appellant who was officiating in the post of Divisional Operat- ing Superintendent, Western Railway, Rajkot. It was alleged
in the complaint that the appellant had committed offences under ss. 166, 167 and 182, Indian Penal Code. The appellant objected before the trying Magistrate that the complaint under s. 182, Indian Penal Code by a private person was barred under s. 195(l)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that as the alleged acts of t?1e appeJ!ants were said to be done in ;lis official capacity and in dis- charge of his official duty and as the appellant was a public servant not removable from his office save with the sanction of the Central Government, the complaint was not maintainable in the absence of sanction of Central Government under s. 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Magistrate was not competent to .take cognizance of the offences under ss. 166 and 167, Indian Penal Code. The objections were overruled by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mel.sana by his order dated October 14, 1961. The appellant took the matter in revision to the Sessions Judge of Meh- sana who referred the matter · to the High Court on January 31 , 1962. In Criminal Reference No. 14of1962 the High Court ordered that the complaint under s .. 182, Indian Penal Code was bad being in contravention of the provisions of s. 195, Criminal Pr0~edure Code, but the High Court directed the trial court
to decide in the first instance whether the appellant was not removable from his office save with the sanction of the Central Government. Thereafter the Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Mehsana, by his order dated February 28, 1963, held that the appel- lant was not removable from his office save with the sanction of the Central Governnment and the complaint should be rejected because there was no sanction granted under s. 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The first respondent preferred a revision petition (1967] 2 S.C.R.
before the Sessions Judge of Mchsana who dismissed il and con- firmed the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mehsana. The first respondent took the matter in revision to the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 385 of 1963. By its order dated July 29, 1964 the High Court held that the appellant being an officiating Class I Officer was removable by the Railway Board and no sanction of Central Government was necessary to prosecute the appellant as c~ntemplated by s. 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court accordingly directed that the case under ss. 166 and 167,
Indian Penal Code should proceed against the ap;iellant. The question pres~nted for determination in this appeal is whether the appellant was, at the date of the complaint i.e., March 14, 1961. a public servant "who was not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government" within the meaning of s. 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code and, therefore, whether sanction of Central Government was necessary for pro- secutin1• the appellant of the offences under ss. 166 '.Ind 167 of the Indian Peral Code.
It is not disputed that on the material date the appellant was officiating in the senior scale as Class I Officer in the Transporta- tion (Traffic & Commercial) Department of the Western Railway. It is also not in dispute that the appellant was holding a substan- tive post as Class II Officer, tiough he was officiating as Class I Officer on March 14, 1961. The question to be considered is whether, on the material date, the appellant was not removable from his office save by the sanction of Central Government within the mean- :. , of s. 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Under s. 3(8)(b) ot the General Clauses Act "Central Government" shall in rela- tion to anything done or to be done after the commencement of the Constitution, mean the President.
Ruic 1728 of Discipline and Appeal Rules for Gazetted Officers (Indian Railway Establishment Code Vol. l) reads as follows : "1728. The following penalties m<1y, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided,
1J<, imposed upon members of the Railway Services, Classes I and JI, namely :- (i) Censure. (ii) Withholding of increments or promotion, including stoppage at any efficiency bar. (iii) Reduction to a lower post or time-scale or to a
lower stage in a time-scale. (ii') Recovery from pay of the whole or part of :my pecuniary loss caused to Government by negli- gence or breach of orders. c c K. N. SHUKLA V. NAVNIT LAL (Ramasll'ami, J.)
(v) Suspension. (vi) Removal from the civil service of the Govern- ment which does not disqualify from future emp- loyment. Dismissal from the civil service of the Govern- ment which ordinarily disqualifies from future
employment. Rule 1729 states : "Subject to the provisions of the rules ir, this Section the President may impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 1728 on any person belonging to a Railway Service, Class I or II, and the authorities specified in column 3 of Schedule II appended to the rules in this chapter may impose the penalties specified in column 4 on the classes of rail- way servants shown in the column 2 of that Schedule."
The relevant part of Schedule II provid~s as follows : "Item Name of service No. of post (I) (2) I, Railway Services, Class I. 2. Railway Services, Class II Punishing authority (3)
The Railway Board Do. Penalties (4) Jn the case of per- sons appointed to a Railway Service, Class J, before !st April, 1937, the penalty specified , in clause (i}, and in the case of others,
the penalties speci- fied in clauses (i} to (v)of Rule 1728. Penalties specified in clauses (i) to (vii) of Rule 1728. Rules 124 to 130 of the Indian Railw'\y Establishment Code, Vol. I deal with Recruitment and Promotion to Gazetted posts. Ruic 124 provides that all first appointments to a Railway Service, Class I, shall be made by the President. Rule 132 provides that all first appointments to the Railway Services, Class IJ, shall be (1967] 2 S.C.R.
made hy the Railway Board. The relevant part of Rule 134 which deals with promotions is to the following effect : "Promotions to gazetted posts.-(1) All suhstantivc promotions to Rail\\ay Services, C'lass I. shall he made
hy the President. (2) Substantive promotions to the Lower Gazetted Service and to the Assistant Accounts Officers· grade shall be made by the Railway Board. (3) The General Manager may appoint-
(a) (b) an officer of the Class II Service to officiate i r. the District Grade or as Senior Accounts Ofliccr for a continuous period not exceeding one year on each occasio11, when circumstances warrant
such a course ; (e) except for the tirst time, an oflkcr of a Railway Service, Class I, to officiatt as a Divisional Superin- tendent (or Divisional ·Transportation Superin- tendent on the Great Indian Peninsula Railway),
if the vacancy is not likely to exceed eight months: Ir 1s app:1rcnt from these Rules that if a substantive promotilm is made from Class II to Class I it is done by the President, but ofli. c1ating appointments arc to
be made by the General Manager, and in some cases with the approval of the Railway Board. E•hibits 22, 23 and 24 which arc the copies of the appointment orders of the :1ppellant <!lso show that he was promoted to Class I by the General Manager with the approval of the
Railway Board. It is also :ipparcnt rhat a Railway Officer who merely officiates in Class I ,·annot he said to belong to Class I within the meaning of item I of Sch. II. It follows therefore that the appellant was removable
from his oliice with the sanction of the Railway Board and the sanction of rhe President is not necessary for taking such action :igainst the appellant. On behalf of the appellant ~r. Sen relied upon the Note to R ulc 1704 which deals with
'Authorities Competent to impose l'cnalt ics· on non-gazetted staff. The note states : "The authority empowered to impose penalties on a r:1il"ay servant ofliciating in a higher post shall be deter- mined by the post held by the railway servant at the time
when rhe renalty is imposed and a non-gazetted railway servanl omciating in a gazctled rosl at the time ofimrosition c t: c K. N. Sh'1JKLA v. NAVNIT LAL (Ramaswami, /.) 29:> of a penalty shall be treated in accordance with the
rules applicable to a railway servant holding the gazetted post in a substantive capacity." But this note applies to the cases of non~gazetted officers and is of no assistance to the appellant. If the authorities framing the rules intended that the same provision should apply in the case of gazetted officers ~\so there was no reason why a similar explanation was not provided to Rule 1729. Mr. Sen also referred to Rule 1705 of the New Rules which came into force on August I, 196 l and which provided as follows :
"The competent authority in the case of a railway servant officiating in a higher post, shall be determined with reference to the officiating post held by him at the time of taking action." It ls obvious that this Rule cannot apply to the appellant as it came into force much later than March 14, 1961 which is the ma- terial date in
determining the question regarding the need for sanc .. 1on. We proceed to consider the next contention of the appellant that even if the Railway Board was the authority competent to remove the appellant from service, the Railway Board was part and parcel of the Ministry of Railways of the Central Government and therefore in the eye of law the Railway Board must be deemed to be the "Central Governmen.t'' for the purpo;;e of s. 197 of the· Criminal Procedure
Code. In support of this argument Mr. Sen referred to the Allocation of Business Rules, 1961 made by the President under cl. (3) of Art. 77 of the Constitution. Item 15 of the First Schedule is 'Ministry of Railways (Railway Board).' Mr. Sen also referred to para 201 of the Indian Railway General Code which states :.
"The existing enactments regulating the construc- tion and operation of railways in India are the Indian Tram- ways Act of 1886 and the Indian Railways Act of 1890 as amended from time to time. Subject to the provisions
of these enactments, the executive authority .in connection with the administration of railways, vests in the Central Qovt. in virtue of the delegation made under section 2 of the Indian Railway Board Act of I 905, all the functions and powers of the Central Government, under certain sec-
tions of the Indian Railways Act of 1890, are exercised by the Railway Board." Para 205 reads as follows : "The Railway Board is to function as a corporate body, and as a corporate body is responsible to advise
the Minister on all major questions of Railway policy. SUPREME COCRT REPORTS [196 7] 2 S.C.R. Major and policy issues arc. therefore. to be submitted to the M'nister with the recommendations of the Board.
Other questions may be submitted to the Minister for his information or orders by iPdividual members." Reference was also made to s. 2 of the Indian Railway Board Act, 1905 (Act No. IV of 1905) which states:
"2. Investment of Railway Board with powers under Indian Raihays Act, 1890.-Thc Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, invest the Rail- way Board, either absolutely or subject to conditions,-
(a) with all or any of the powers or function of the Ccntrai Government under the Indian Railways Act, 1890, with respect to all or any railways, and (b) with the power of the officer referred to in section
47 of the said Act to make general rules for railways administered by the Government." It was argued by Mr. Sen that the Railway Board is vested with the powers of Central Government in respect of administration of Railways and therefore it must be taken that the Railway Board itself is a part of Central Government. We are unable to accept this argument as correct. It is true that many important powers and functions of the Central Government in respect of administ- ration of the Railways are exercised by the Railway Board, but it does not follow that the Railway Board is exercising those powers in their own right as part of the Central Government. On the other hand, s. 2 of the Railway Board Act, 1905 itself indicates that the Railway Board is an entity which is separate from the ·Central Government and the powers of the Railway Board arc -derived as a matter of delegation either absolutely or subject to -conditions by notifk.ition by the Central Government. In other words, the Railway Board is a separate body which derives its powers and authority however wide they may be only because of delega- tion of powers
~;om the Central Government in respect of the administration 01 the Railways. The result therefore is that the appellant was appointed in an officiating position as Class I Officer by tile
Railway Board and therefore he was removable by the Railway Board and not by the Central Government. It cannot be said in the circumstances that the appellant was one of those public officers who could be removed only by or with the sanction of the Central Government within the meaning of s. 197, Criminal Procedure Code.
It was suggested on behalf of the appellant that even if the Rai!Y:ay Board had power to remove the appellant from his office c c K. N, SHUKLA v. NAVNIT LAL (Ramaswami, }. ) and even if it was acting under the powers delegated to it, tt,., principle of the maxim qui facit per alium facit per se applies to the case and the appellant must be deemed to be removable only by or with the sanction of the Central Government within the meaning of s. 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. We do not think there is any substance in this argument.
If once th~ Central Govern- mert has delegated its power to another authority witit regard to appointment and removal of a public servant, then for the purpose of s. 197, Criminal Procedure Code the public servant concerned will not be treated to be a public servant "not removable from his office except by or with the sanction of the Central G0vernment". within the meaning of that section. A similar argument was ad- vanced in Afzalur Rahman v. The King Emperor etc.(') in which it was held that a police officer who could be dismissed by the D~puty Inspector-General of Police under the statutory rules and regu- lations was not a person in "not removable from office except by or with the sanction of the Provincial Government" within the meaning of s. 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code and that sanction under that section was not, therefore, necessary for prosecuting such an officer for an offence alleged to have been committed by him. Varadachariar, J. speaking for the Federal Court
in that case observed that the provisions of s. 24l(l)(b) and s. 240(2) of the Government of India Act must also be understood in the light of the practice prevailing in India under which the power to appoint and dismiss particular class:is of officers is vested in particular authorities. Otherwise there is the danger of our ignoring the policy of the Legislature in limiting the class of officers entitled to this protection and of making s. 197, Criminal Procedure Code available to all public officers. We accordingly reject the argument of the appellant on this aspect of the case.
For the reasons already expressed we hold that the decision of the Gujarat High Court is correct and this appeal must C>e dis- missed. V.P.S. Appeal dismiss<•d. (I) (1943) F.C.R. 7.