VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III

DECISION - 56
271
nature. Consequently any action decided to be taken against a
Government servant found guilty of misconduct is a judicial order
and as such it cannot be varied by the State Government.
The Revenue Minister could make an order on behalf of the
State Government but the question is whether he did in fact make
such an order. Merely writing something on a file does not amount to
an order. Before something amounts to an order of the State
Government, two things are necessary. The order has to be
expressed in the name of the Governor as required by Art. 166 of
Constitution, and then it has to be communicated. For, until the order
is communicated to the person affected by it, it would be open to the
Council of Ministers to reconsider the matter over and over again,
and therefore, till its communication the order cannot be regarded as
anything more than provisional in character.
As regards the decision by the Chief Minister of Punjab,
unquestionably the matter pertained to the portfolio of the Revenue
Minister, but it was the Revenue Minister himself who submitted the
file for Chief Minister’s advice. Under the rules of Business, the
Chief Minister was empowered to see such cases or class of cases
as Chief Minister may consider necessary before the issue of orders.
The Chief Minister was, therefore, competent to call for any file and
deal with it himself. The order passed by the Chief Minister even
though on a matter pertaining to the portfolio of the Revenue Minister,
will be deemed to be an order of Council of Ministers.
(56)
(A) Court jurisdiction
High Court acting under Art. 226 of Constitution
cannot sit in appeal over findings of Tribunal in
departmental inquiries but if findings are not
supported by any evidence, would be justified in
setting aside findings.
(B) Evidence Act — applicability of
Technical rules of Evidence Act not applicable to
departmental inquiries.