State of Uttar Pradesh v Manbodhan Lal Srivastava
Rule established
The requirement of consultation with the Public Service Commission in Article 320(3) is directory and not mandatory. It confers no right on a public servant, and failure to consult the Commission does not by itself invalidate disciplinary action taken against him.
Facts
- The respondent was a civil servant of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
- Disciplinary proceedings were taken against him and he was dismissed from service.
- Article 320(3)(c) provides that the Union or State Public Service Commission shall be consulted on all disciplinary matters affecting a person serving under the Government in a civil capacity.
- The Public Service Commission was not consulted before the order of dismissal was made.
- The respondent contended that consultation was a condition precedent to a valid order, and that the dismissal was therefore void.
- He also relied on the general principle that a mandatory requirement of procedure, if not complied with, vitiates the resulting action.
Issue
- Whether the requirement of consultation with the Public Service Commission under Art.320(3) is mandatory, so that non-compliance invalidates the disciplinary action.
Held
- The provision is directory and not mandatory, and the dismissal was valid. The Court reasoned that Art.320(3) contains no words making consultation a condition precedent to the validity of the action, and prescribes no consequence for a failure to consult. Further, the proviso to Art.320(3) expressly permits the making of regulations specifying the matters in which, and the extent to which, it shall not be necessary for the Commission to be consulted, which shows that the requirement was not intended to be inflexible. The Court also observed that the function of the Commission is advisory, that its advice is not binding on the Government, and that a provision imposing a duty of consultation on the Government for its own assistance confers no corresponding right on the individual servant. Non-compliance may attract comment, and under Art.323 a memorandum explaining any case in which the Commission's advice was not accepted must be laid before the legislature, but it does not give the servant a cause of action.
Ratio Decidendi
Whether a procedural requirement is mandatory or directory depends on the object of the provision and the consequences of holding it one way or the other. Here the object is to secure independent advice for the benefit of the Government, not to protect the servant, whose protection is separately and expressly provided by Art.311. Since the advice is not binding even when obtained, treating its absence as fatal would give the servant more from the omission than he would have obtained from compliance.
How to use it in an exam
- The standard authority on Art.320(3). State the conclusion crisply: the provision is directory, confers no right on the servant, and non-compliance does not invalidate the action.
- Learn the three reasons, which are the examinable content: no words making consultation a condition precedent, no consequence prescribed, and the proviso permitting regulations dispensing with consultation.
- Contrast sharply with Chandra Mohan v State of UP 1966, where consultation with the High Court under Art.233 was held mandatory, and with Art.124(2), where consultation with the Chief Justice is mandatory. The lesson is that the character of a consultation requirement depends on the article and its purpose, not on the word used.
- Note the practical accountability that survives: under Art.323 the Commission's annual report must be accompanied by a memorandum explaining any case in which its advice was not accepted, laid before the legislature.
- In a problem, dispose of a non-consultation point shortly by citing this case, and then turn to the arguments that actually matter, namely Art.311(1) as to the competence of the dismissing authority and Art.311(2) as to the inquiry.
Source
Source: AIR 1957 SC 912; (1958) SCR 533; Constitution Bench of five Judges; the standard authority on the directory character of Art.320(3); citation and bench checked against Indian Kanoon and reported sources, audit of 12 August 2026
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.