1998 (12) TMI 615 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant is an "authority" and an instrumentality of the State and thus amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
2. Whether the dismissal orders passed against the respondents were in violation of the Service Rules and principles of natural justice.

Summary:

1. Authority and Instrumentality of the State:
The Supreme Court considered whether the appellant, a cooperative society registered under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, and constituted under the U.P. Cooperative Land Development Bank Act, 1964, is an "authority" under Article 12 of the Constitution. The Court noted that the appellant is governed by both the Societies Act and the Bank Act, which include provisions for the recruitment, training, and disciplinary control of employees. The appellant is subject to the control of the State Government, which includes the appointment of its Managing Director and Chief General Manager from state officials. The Court concluded that the appellant is an instrumentality of the State due to its pervasive control by the State Government and the statutory nature of its Service Rules. Thus, the appellant is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court u/s Article 226 of the Constitution.

2. Violation of Service Rules and Principles of Natural Justice:
The High Court had previously set aside the dismissal orders against the respondents, holding that the relevant Service Rules and principles of natural justice were not followed. The Supreme Court examined the disciplinary proceedings conducted against the respondents, which included serving charge-sheets, providing opportunities for personal hearing, and allowing inspection of documents. The Court found that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Service Rules and principles of natural justice. The Inquiry Officer's reports were based on evidence, and the respondents were given opportunities to defend themselves. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in finding that the dismissal orders were vitiated by non-compliance with the rules of natural justice and statutory rules.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the appellant is an "authority" and an instrumentality of the State, making it amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court u/s Article 226. However, the disciplinary proceedings against the respondents were conducted in accordance with the law, and the High Court's judgment setting aside the dismissal orders was incorrect. The appeals were allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside, thereby dismissing the writ petitions filed by the respondents.