Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DR. R.K. DIWAKAR & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/08/1997
BENCH:
K. VENKATASWAMI, V.N. KHARE.
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1997
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.Venkataswami
Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.N.Khare
G.M.Mishra and Rathin Das, Advs. for the appellants
A.P.Mohanty, Adv. for the Respondents
J U D G M E N T S
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:-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
"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.