20. Retrospective effect to the Rules, Rules must be reasonable. Administrative vis-a-vis Quasi-judicial functions

96. Omission of report cannot be subject matter of discipline

Omission to do an act though advisable, but not prescribed under rules, cannot be subject matter of Inquiry (If a postman comes to know of a fraud committed by his neighbouring postman, the failure to report it, is not a misconduct).

(1989) 9 ATC 369 Calcutta.

 

97. Rules cannot be discarded on the ground that they have become unworkable

"A rule validly made even if it has become unworkable unless repealed or replaced by another rule or amended continue to be in force" - observed Supreme Court in Union of India vs. V. Ramakrishnan, 2005 AIR SCW 5147, para 26]

98. Retrospective effect to the Rules

 "It is now well settled that rules made under Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution are legislative in character and therefore can be given effect to retrospectively" observed the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1975 SC 1116. This position of law was re-affirmed in Government of A.P. v. Syed Yousudin, 1997 Lab, NC (SC) 3361. The rules have, thus, both prospective and retrospective effect (B.S. Vadhera v, Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 118]. The newly framed rules can, therefore, be made applicable to those also who are already in employment.

(P.Balakotaiah v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 232].

99. Rules must be reasonable

In State of U.P. v. Ram Gopal Shukla, (1981)3 SCC 1, the Supreme Court observed -

“the rules regulating the conditions of service are within the executive power of the State or its legislative power under the Proviso to Article 309 but even so, such rules have to be reasonable, fair and not grossly unjust, if they are to survive the test of Articles 14 and 16.”

100. Administrative vis-a-vis Quasi-judicial functions.

The main points of difference between the two are :

(i) an administrative order may be changed or modified in the developing situation by the same authority. A quasi-judicial order cannot be modified by the same authority. It may be changed or modified in appeal or review if provisions therefor exist in the rules;

(ii) while quasi-judicial functions cannot be discharged on dictation or direction by a higher authority, there is no such limitation in administrative functions;

(iii) while quasi-judicial powers can be delegated through rules only, an administrative power can be delegated by the officer in whom it vests. In other words, the administrative authority can, in appropriate situation, ask a subordinate to discharge the particular function on his behalf; and

(iv) while the final order in a quasi-judicial proceeding must be a speaking order i.e., it should contain reasons for the conclusions reached, there is no such obligation in the discharge of administrative functions.