2004 (2) TMI 689 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the judgment of the High Court holding that the revisional power as vested in the state government under rule 13 of the U.P. Rules of 1999 shall be available in respect of the employees of the Corporation is erroneous and not sustainable?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the State Government to exercise revisional power under Rule 13 of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999.
2. Applicability of U.P. Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 to the employees of the U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation.
3. Validity of the order passed by the State Government setting aside the Chairman's order and restoring the Managing Director's order of dismissal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the State Government to Exercise Revisional Power:

The primary issue was whether the State Government had the jurisdiction to exercise revisional power under Rule 13 of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 (U.P. Rules of 1999) concerning employees of the U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation. The High Court had observed that the Corporation had adopted the U.P. Rules of 1999 mutatis mutandis, thereby granting the State Government the power to hear the revision. However, the Supreme Court clarified that adopting rules does not automatically transfer the authority to the State Government. The Court stated, "If the organization adopts the rules pertaining to disciplinary matters as prevalent in the government or other organization, it would only mean that same procedure would be applicable... but such powers would be exercisable by the corresponding authorities in the organization adopting the rules." Thus, the State Government's jurisdiction was deemed inappropriate as the Corporation had its independent existence and corresponding authorities.

2. Applicability of U.P. Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999:

The Court examined whether the U.P. Rules of 1999 were applicable to the Corporation's employees. The Corporation had passed a resolution on 10.7.2001 to incorporate these rules into their service regulations. The Court noted, "The expression 'mutatis mutandis' itself implies applicability of any provision with necessary changes in points of detail." Therefore, while the principles of the U.P. Rules of 1999 were applicable, the specific authorities mentioned in the rules were not. The Corporation's corresponding authorities should exercise the powers, not the State Government.

3. Validity of the State Government's Order:

The Supreme Court found that the State Government's order dated 15.9.2001, which set aside the Chairman's order and restored the Managing Director's order of dismissal, was without jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the High Court's judgment was erroneous as it did not examine the jurisdictional question properly. The Supreme Court concluded, "In our view, the judgment of the High Court holding that the revisional power as vested in the state government under rule 13 of the U.P. Rules of 1999 shall be available in respect of the employees of the Corporation is erroneous and not sustainable."

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside both the High Court's judgment and the State Government's order dated 15.9.2001. The Court held that the State Government had no jurisdiction to exercise revisional power under Rule 13 of the U.P. Rules of 1999 concerning the Corporation's employees. The appeal was allowed without any order as to costs.