9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 1238 - SC - Indian LawsPunishment of dismissal of the respondent from the service - validity of Dismissal order passed by the competent authority - law relating to Ratification - Held that - Keeping in mind the contents of the Resolutions, it is difficult to agree with the view taken by the High Court that the BOG did not pass the dismissal order but it was passed by the Principal & Secretary. In other words, keeping in view the contents of the four Resolutions, we have no hesitation to hold that the dismissal order dated 16.08.1996 was passed by the BOG and the Principal & Secretary only signed the order for and on behalf of the BOG on the strength of authorization made in his favour by the BOG vide Resolution dated 11.03.1996. Applying the law of ratification to the facts at hand, even if we assume for the sake of argument that the order of dismissal dated 16.08.1996 was passed by the Principal & Secretary who had neither any authority to pass such order under the Rules nor there was any authorization given by the BOG in his favour to pass such order yet in our considered view when the BOG in their meeting held on 22.08.1996 approved the previous actions of the Principal & Secretary in passing the respondent s dismissal order dated 16.08.1996, all the irregularities complained of by the respondent in the proceedings including the authority exercised by the Principal & Secretary to dismiss him stood ratified by the Competent Authority (Board of Governors) themselves with retrospective effect from 16.8.1996 thereby making an invalid act a lawful one in conformity with the procedure prescribed in Rules. In such circumstances, the respondent s grievance that the dismissal order had not been passed by the competent authority, i.e., the BOG is no longer survived. We differ with the view taken by the High Court and accordingly hold that the dismissal order dated 16.08.1996 was passed by the Competent Authority, namely, the BOG as prescribed in the Rules and hence it was legal and proper. It is accordingly upheld.
Issues Involved:
1. Competency of the authority that issued the dismissal order. 2. Validity of the departmental proceedings. 3. Ratification of actions taken by the Principal & Secretary. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Competency of the Authority that Issued the Dismissal Order: The primary issue was whether the dismissal order dated 16.08.1996 was passed by the competent authority as prescribed under the rules. The High Court held that the dismissal was invalid as it was issued by the Principal & Secretary, who lacked the authority under the Rules, which vested such power solely in the Board of Governors (BOG). The Supreme Court, however, found that the BOG had authorized the Principal & Secretary to take necessary actions in consultation with the Chairman, BOG, as evidenced by multiple resolutions. Specifically, the resolutions dated 07.12.1994, 08.06.1995, 11.03.1996, and 22.08.1996 showed that the BOG was involved at every stage and had effectively delegated the authority to the Principal & Secretary. The Court concluded that the dismissal order was indeed passed by the BOG, with the Principal & Secretary acting on their behalf. 2. Validity of the Departmental Proceedings: The appellant contended that the departmental proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, and provided the respondent with full opportunity to defend himself. The Supreme Court noted that the inquiry committee issued multiple notices to the respondent, who failed to appear. The committee proceeded with the inquiry, examined witnesses, and concluded that the charges were proven. The BOG reviewed and accepted the inquiry report, leading to the issuance of the dismissal order. The Court found no procedural flaws in the departmental proceedings. 3. Ratification of Actions Taken by the Principal & Secretary: The Supreme Court applied the principle of ratification, which allows subsequent approval of an act that was initially unauthorized, making it retrospectively valid. The Court cited precedents, including Parmeshwari Prasad Gupta vs. U.O.I and Maharashtra State Mining Corpn. vs. Sunil, to support this principle. The BOG's resolution on 22.08.1996 ratified the actions taken by the Principal & Secretary, including the dismissal order, thereby curing any initial lack of authority. The Court held that this ratification validated the dismissal order from its original date, making the respondent's grievance about the authority moot. Conclusion: The Supreme Court overruled the High Court's decision, holding that the dismissal order was validly issued by the competent authority, the BOG, and ratified any procedural irregularities. The appeal was allowed, and the respondent's writ petition was dismissed, affirming the legality of the dismissal.
|
