Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADRASMETROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY ANDSE
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
R.RAJAN ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT28/11/1995
BENCH:
JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)
BENCH:
JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)
MAJMUDAR S.B. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (1) 338 JT 1995 (8) 447
1995 SCALE (6)723
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
B.P.JEEVAN REDDY,J.
Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties.
These appeals are preferred against the judgment of the
Division Bench of the Madras High Court disposing of writ
appeals, preferred by the respondents, with certain
directions.
The respondents, R.Rajan and C.A.Rajan, are the
Secretary and President respectively of the Association of
Assistant Engineers in the service of the Madras
Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (The Board).
Disciplinary action has been initiated against them under
the Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1978
(Regulations). After the receipt of the Enquiry Officer’s
report, the General Manager of the Board issued notices to
the respondents calling upon them to submit their defence,
if any within seven days of the receipt of the said notices.
A copy of the Enquiry Officer’s report along with
depositions of witnesses was enclosed to the said notices.
At that stage, the respondent approached the Madras High
Court by way of writ petitions contending that the Board is
bent upon dismissing them from service, that they were being
victimised for union activities and that the General Manager
who has issued the aforesaid notices has no jurisdiction to
impose the punishment of dismissal. They also raised several
grounds with respect to the regularity and validity of the
manner in which the enquiry against them was conducted. The
appellants (respondents in the writ petitions) opposed the
writ petitions inter alia on the ground that the High Court
ought not have interfered at that stage of disciplinary
proceedings. They denied the charges of victimisation or
unfair labour practice levelled by the respondents. They
also denied that the Board had already made up its mind to
dismiss the respondents. While affirming the power of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
General Manager to impose the penalty of dismissal upon the
respondents, the learned counsel for the Board appears to
have stated before the learned Single Judge that the Board
does not propose to impose the punishment of dismissal on
the respondents (writ petitioners) even if the charges
against them are established - vide Para 29 of the judgment
of the learned Single Judge.
The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions
on the ground that no interference is called for at that
stage of the disciplinary proceedings but observed at the
same time that "even if the charges are held proved against
the petitioners, the punishment of dismissal from service
shall not be imposed on the petitioners in the light of the
statement made on behalf of the respondents". (In the above
extract, the expression "petitioners" means the writ
petitions who are respondents in these appeals and the
expression "respondents" means the appellants herein.)
The respondents filed two writ appeals against the
judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench was
also of the opinion that at the present stage of
disciplinary proceedings, no interference is warranted by
the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The Bench observed that "this is not the stage at which the
Court can issue a direction as to what punishment should be
imposed and what not". But then, it noted, "however, in the
light of the assertion on the part of the Managing Director
that he has powers to impose a penalty of compulsory
retirement, it becomes necessary to indicate what are his
powers relating to the officers having revised pay scales of
Rs.2000-760-2300-75-3200-100-3500."* The Bench examined the
relevant regulations, the old and the revised pay scales and
concluded that the Managing Director is not competent to
impose the penalty of dismissal or compulsory retirement
upon the respondents. The Division Bench held:
"The Managing Director is not competent
authority to impose penalties mentioned
in (f), (g) and (h), viz., with-holding
otherwise than on attaining the age of
superannuation and dismissal from
service respectively. According to the
regulations, Board is the competent
authority to impose penalties mentioned
in (f) and (g) and Government is the
competent authority to impose the
penalty mentioned in (h)."
------------------------------------------------------------
*The respondents are in this pay scale.
The writ appeals were accordingly disposed of with the above
observations.
In the present appeals preferred by the Board, the
holding of the Division Bench with respect to the powers of
the Managing Director is called in question.
As rightly held by the learned Single Judge and the
Division Bench, no interference was called for at an
interlocutory stage of the disciplinary proceedings. The
enquiry was no doubt over but the competent authority was
yet to decide whether the charges against the respondents
are established either wholly or partly and what punishment,
if any, is called for. At this stage of proceedings, it was
wholly unnecessary to go into the question as to who is
competent to impose which punishment upon the respondents.
Such an exercise is purely academic at this at age of the
disciplinary proceedings. So far as the learned Single Judge
is concerned, he did not examine the regulations nor did he
record any finding as to the powers of the General Manager,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
the Board or the Government, as the case may be. He merely
directed that in view of the statement made by the learned
counsel for the Board, the punishment of dismissal shall not
be imposed upon the respondents even if the charges against
them are established. When the respondents filed writ
appeals, the Division Bench was also of the opinion that
this was not the stage to interfere under Article 226 of the
Constitution nor was it a stage at which one should
speculate as to the punishment that may be imposed. But it
appears that the Board insisted upon a decision on the
question of power. It is because of the assertion on the
part of the appellants (that the Managing Director has the
power to impose the penalty of compulsory retirement) that
the Division Bench examined the question of power on merits.
The said assertion of the Managing Director that he has the
power to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement
probably created an impression in the mind of the Court that
the Board has already decided to impose the said punishment
upon the respondents and probably it is for the said reason
that they examined the said question on merits. (Insofar as
the respondents are concerned, it was their refrain
throughout that the Board had already decided to impose the
punishment of dismissal/compulsory retirement upon them and
that the enquiry and all the other proceedings were merely
an eye-wash.)
While we agree that expression of any opinion on the
question of powers of the Managing Director, the Board or
the Government in the matter of imposition of penalties
under the regulations was unnecessary at this stage, we are
of the opinion that the Board cannot complain of it when it
itself has invited the decision of the Division Bench on the
said question. On our part, we refuse to make any
pronouncement on such an academic question at this stage and
leave it open. Accordingly, we dismiss these appeals without
expressing any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of
the holding of the Division Bench with respect to the powers
of the Managing Director, the Board or the Government in the
matter of imposition of punishments/penalties upon the
respondents under the aforesaid regulations. We only affirm
the view of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench
that at this stage of the disciplinary proceedings, no
interference is warranted by the High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution.
No costs.