Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 649-50/2005
th
Date of Decision: 19 March, 2008
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA & Another ... Appellants
Through: Ms. Anjana Gosain, Advocate
versus
RAJBIR SINGH SOLANKI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. M.K. Gaur with Mr. U.
Srivastava and Mr. D.S.
Yadav, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment? Not necessary
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Not necessary
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Not necessary
Per Thakur, J (oral)
Aggrieved by an order of dismissal passed against him the
respondent appealed to the prescribed Appellate Authority.
th
That appeal was dismissed by an order dated 28 April, 1994.
The petitioner then filed writ petition No. 5545/1993
challenging the order of his dismissal from service as also the
order passed by the Appellate Authority whereby his appeal was
dismissed, inter alia contending that the Authority who had
passed the order of dismissal was not competent to do so under
the service regulations. A learned Single Judge of this Court
LPA 649-50/2005 Page No. 1 of 4
found favour with that submission. The single bench noted that
in terms of the Service Regulations governing the service
conditions of the petitioner-respondent herein, it was the
Executive Director of the International Authority who was
competent to pass an order on the basis of the enquiry
conducted against the petitioner. Since the order of dismissal
had been passed by the Airport Director, the same could not be
sustained observe the Court. The writ petition filed by the
petitioner - respondent herein was, accordingly, allowed and the
order of his dismissal from service set aside together with the
order passed by the Appellate Authority. Liberty was, however,
given by the learned Single Judge to the Executive Director
(Personnel) to pass a fresh order in his capacity as the
Disciplinary Authority after affording to the petitioner an
opportunity to represent against the Enquiry Authority. The
learned Single Judge directed as under:-
“Impugned order dated 18.08.1992 is set aside.
Order in appeal dated 28.04.1994 is also set aside.
It would be open for the Executive Director
(Personnel) to pass a fresh order in his capacity as
the disciplinary authority. Since petitioner has with
him the report of the enquiry officer, should the
respondent wish to proceed further, petitioner
would be granted an opportunity to represent
against the report of the enquiry officer. It would
be open to the disciplinary authority to pass
appropriate orders for continued suspension of the
petitioner or to treat the period post 18.08.1992 till
LPA 649-50/2005 Page No. 2 of 4
date of whatever kind, but as per service
regulations. Should the respondent chose not to
proceed further petitioner would be reinstated in
service with 50% back wages but continuity of
service for all other benefits. Needful decision to be
taken within six days from today.”
The present appeal assails the above order. Having heard
learned counsel counsel for the parties at some length and
having perused the record, we are of the view that the order
under appeal does not suffer from any error of law or
jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge was in our opinion
perfectly justified in holding that since the service regulations
provided for the Executive Director (Personnel) to be the
Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner, any order of punishment
against the petitioner could be passed only by the said authority
and not by the Airport Director, no matter the post of Airport
Director was comparable to that of the Executive Director
(Personnel). It is common ground that the Regulations do not
provide for the Airport Director functioning as the Disciplinary
Authority of the petitioner who was at the relevant point of time
attached to the headquarters. It is also a common ground that
for such of the employees as are attached to the headquarters,
the Regulations provide for the Executive Director (Personnel)
to be the Disciplinary Authority. That being the case the order
LPA 649-50/2005 Page No. 3 of 4
passed by the Airport Director was evidently contrary to the
Regulations and if we may say so, incompetent. The learned
Single Judge was, therefore, right in setting aside the said order
and so also the order passed in appeal by the prescribed
Appellate Authority.
Learned counsel for the appellant then argued and this
Court ought to direct the Executive Director ( Personnel ) to pass
a fresh order on the subject. We see no reason to do so.
Whether or not a fresh order should be passed is a matter which
is now in the discretion of the employer/competent Disciplinary
Authority. All that, we need say is that the Executive Director
who is the competent Authority shall have the liberty to pass a
fresh order which liberty has already been reserved to him by
the order passed by the learned Single Judge. To that we see no
reason to add any further direction or observation. In the result
this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed, but in the
circumstances, without any order as to costs.
T.S. THAKUR, J
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
March 19, 2008
ns
LPA 649-50/2005 Page No. 4 of 4
+ LPA 649-50/2005
th
Date of Decision: 19 March, 2008
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA & Another ... Appellants
Through: Ms. Anjana Gosain, Advocate
versus
RAJBIR SINGH SOLANKI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. M.K. Gaur with Mr. U.
Srivastava and Mr. D.S.
Yadav, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment? Not necessary
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Not necessary
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Not necessary
Per Thakur, J (oral)
Aggrieved by an order of dismissal passed against him the
respondent appealed to the prescribed Appellate Authority.
th
That appeal was dismissed by an order dated 28 April, 1994.
The petitioner then filed writ petition No. 5545/1993
challenging the order of his dismissal from service as also the
order passed by the Appellate Authority whereby his appeal was
dismissed, inter alia contending that the Authority who had
passed the order of dismissal was not competent to do so under
the service regulations. A learned Single Judge of this Court
LPA 649-50/2005 Page No. 1 of 4
found favour with that submission. The single bench noted that
in terms of the Service Regulations governing the service
conditions of the petitioner-respondent herein, it was the
Executive Director of the International Authority who was
competent to pass an order on the basis of the enquiry
conducted against the petitioner. Since the order of dismissal
had been passed by the Airport Director, the same could not be
sustained observe the Court. The writ petition filed by the
petitioner - respondent herein was, accordingly, allowed and the
order of his dismissal from service set aside together with the
order passed by the Appellate Authority. Liberty was, however,
given by the learned Single Judge to the Executive Director
(Personnel) to pass a fresh order in his capacity as the
Disciplinary Authority after affording to the petitioner an
opportunity to represent against the Enquiry Authority. The
learned Single Judge directed as under:-
“Impugned order dated 18.08.1992 is set aside.
Order in appeal dated 28.04.1994 is also set aside.
It would be open for the Executive Director
(Personnel) to pass a fresh order in his capacity as
the disciplinary authority. Since petitioner has with
him the report of the enquiry officer, should the
respondent wish to proceed further, petitioner
would be granted an opportunity to represent
against the report of the enquiry officer. It would
be open to the disciplinary authority to pass
appropriate orders for continued suspension of the
petitioner or to treat the period post 18.08.1992 till
LPA 649-50/2005 Page No. 2 of 4
date of whatever kind, but as per service
regulations. Should the respondent chose not to
proceed further petitioner would be reinstated in
service with 50% back wages but continuity of
service for all other benefits. Needful decision to be
taken within six days from today.”
The present appeal assails the above order. Having heard
learned counsel counsel for the parties at some length and
having perused the record, we are of the view that the order
under appeal does not suffer from any error of law or
jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge was in our opinion
perfectly justified in holding that since the service regulations
provided for the Executive Director (Personnel) to be the
Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner, any order of punishment
against the petitioner could be passed only by the said authority
and not by the Airport Director, no matter the post of Airport
Director was comparable to that of the Executive Director
(Personnel). It is common ground that the Regulations do not
provide for the Airport Director functioning as the Disciplinary
Authority of the petitioner who was at the relevant point of time
attached to the headquarters. It is also a common ground that
for such of the employees as are attached to the headquarters,
the Regulations provide for the Executive Director (Personnel)
to be the Disciplinary Authority. That being the case the order
LPA 649-50/2005 Page No. 3 of 4
passed by the Airport Director was evidently contrary to the
Regulations and if we may say so, incompetent. The learned
Single Judge was, therefore, right in setting aside the said order
and so also the order passed in appeal by the prescribed
Appellate Authority.
Learned counsel for the appellant then argued and this
Court ought to direct the Executive Director ( Personnel ) to pass
a fresh order on the subject. We see no reason to do so.
Whether or not a fresh order should be passed is a matter which
is now in the discretion of the employer/competent Disciplinary
Authority. All that, we need say is that the Executive Director
who is the competent Authority shall have the liberty to pass a
fresh order which liberty has already been reserved to him by
the order passed by the learned Single Judge. To that we see no
reason to add any further direction or observation. In the result
this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed, but in the
circumstances, without any order as to costs.
T.S. THAKUR, J
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
March 19, 2008
ns
LPA 649-50/2005 Page No. 4 of 4