The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
(With C.A. No. 5851 of 1994)
J U D G M E N T K. Venkataswami, J.
A common question of law arises out of these two appeals. As a matter of fact, the High Court disposed of the two Miscellaneous Petitions by one order.
The appellant framed charges against the first respondent in each of the appeals for certain alleged misconduct committed by them. The charge-sheets were issued by the Director. Medical and Health Services of the appellant. The delinquents challenged the charge-sheets on the only ground that their appointing authority/disciplinary authority being the Managing Director of the appellant, the charge memo issued by the Director, Medical and Health Services was invalid and of no consequence. The appellant, however, justified the issue of charge-sheet by the Director. Medical & Health Services on the ground that the powers to initiate disciplinary action had been delegated to the Head of the Department who enjoys a rank of General Manager. The Director, Medical and Health Services, who issued the charge memos, admittedly come under the category of controlling authority.
The High court did not accept the contention of the appellant (respondent before the High Court) stating that the delegation of power has not been established.
Before us, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, apart from bringing to our notice the relevant proceedings duly delegating the power to the Director, Medical and Health Services, invited our attention to a recent decision of this Court in Director General. ESI vs. T.Abdul Razak (1996 (4) SCC 708). In that case, in answering an identical question, this Court held a follows:-
"With regard to initiation of
disciplinary proceedings by the
Regional Director, we find that the
legal position is well settled that
it is not necessary that the
authority competent to impose the
penalty must initiate the
disciplinary proceedings and that
the proceedings can be initiated by
any superior authority who can be
held to be the controlling
authority who may be an officer
subordinate to the appointing
authority (See: State of m.P. v.
Shardul Singh; P.V. Srinivasa
Sastry v. Controller & Auditor
General and Inspector General of
Police v. General and Inspector
General of Police v. Thavasiappan).
The Regional Director, being the
officer-in-charge of the region,
was the controlling authority in
respect of the respondents. He
could institute the disciplinary
proceedings against the respondents
even in the absence of specific
conferment of a power in that
regard."
(Emphasis supplied)
In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the authority who issued the charge-sheet was the controlling authority. That being the position, the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and accordingly it is set aside and the appeals are allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.