Shamsher vs State of Punjab - Case Analysis

Introduction of Shamsher vs State of Punjab

The case of Shamsher Singh vs State of Punjab is an important decision regarding the discretionary powers of the Governor. The decision was by a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court. The appellants in this case cleared Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) and were on probation when their services were terminated. The terminations were based on the recommendations of the High Court and approved by the Ministers or the Chief Minister. The orders were issued in the name of the Governor of Punjab without his personal involvement. The appellants contended that as the constitutional head of the State the Governor is required to personally exercise the powers of appointment and removal of members of the Subordinate Judicial Service.

📚 Exclusive Free Judiciary Notes For Law Aspirants

Subjects	PDF Link
Download the Free Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita PDF Created by legal experts	Download Link
Grab the Free Law of Contract PDF used by Judiciary Aspirants	Download Link
Get your hands on the most trusted Free Law of Torts PDF	Download Link
Crack concepts with this Free Jurisprudence PDF crafted by top mentors	Download Link

Historical Context and Facts of Shamsher vs State of Punjab

The present case involves two appeals arising from the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The appellants had joined the Public Civil Service but were on probation. On 27th April 1967, the services of Shamsher Singh were terminated by an order made by the Government of Punjab in the name of the Governor without stating any reason. On 15th December 1969, the services of the other appellant, Ishwar Chand Aggarwal, were also terminated based on suggestions made by the High Court and the order was also issued by the Government in the name of the Governor.

Issue addressed in Shamsher vs State of Punjab

The main questions which was addressed in this case were-

• Whether the Governor can exercise discretion on appointment and removal of members of the Subordinate Judicial Service?

Legal Provisions involved in Shamsher vs State of Punjab

Article 163 of the Indian Constitution

1. There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister as the head to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise of his functions, except in so far as he is by or under this Constitution required to exercise his functions or any of them at 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, 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 was tendered by Ministers to the Governor shall not be inquired into in any Court.

Article 234 of the Indian Constitution

According to Article 234 - Appointment of persons other than district judges to the judicial service of a State shall be made by the Governor of the State in accordance with rules made by him on that behalf after consultation with the State Public Service Commission and with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State.

Article 235 of the Indian Constitution

Article 235 provides that the control over district courts and courts subordinate thereto including the posting and promotion of, and the grant of leave to, persons belonging to the judicial service of a State and holding any post inferior to the post of district judge shall be vested in the High Court, but nothing in this article shall be construed as taking away from any such person any right of appeal which he may under the law regulating the conditions of his service or as authorizing the High Court to deal with him otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of his service prescribed under such law.

Article 311(2) of the Indian Constitution

Article 311(2) states that no such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges Provided that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed: Provided further that this clause shall not apply-

1. where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge
2. where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank ins satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry
3. where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold such inquiry.

The Supreme Court in this case held that the Governor or President must act in accordance with the advice of the Council of Ministers as provided by the Constitution. The Court also clarified that the term “satisfaction” refers to satisfaction derived from the advice and aid of the Council of Ministers led by the Chief Minister or Prime Minister. Any action taken by the Governor or President without such advice is constitutionally invalid. In this case, the Court deemed the actions of the Governor which were challenged as invalid because they did not follow the constitutional process involving the Council of Ministers.

Conclusion

In Shamsher Singh vs State of Punjab established the importance for the Governor to act in accordance with the advice of the Council of Ministers as provided under the Constitution. The decision also clarified that the concept of “satisfaction” must derive from the advice of the Council making any actions taken by the Governor without such guidance constitutionally invalid.