9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (7) TMI 499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 and the order dated March 18, 1987, Rule 16(2) and the resolution of the Standing Committee, to the extent they empower the Director General to delegate the powers or duties delegated to him under any resolution of the Corporation or the Standing Committee referable to Section 94-A, Are invalid but the rest of the said Rule and the resolution are valid. As a result, the applications filed by the respondents before the Tribunal are dismissed. - C.A. 3952 OF1988 - - - Dated:- 8-7-1996 - S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ. JUDGMENT These appeals directed against the judgment of the central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) dated January 29, 1988 raise a common question relating to the validity of Rule 16(2) of the employees State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ) and Regulations 12(2) and 13(1) of the Employees State Insurance Corporation (Staff and Condition of Service) Regulations, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the regulations ) The Employees State Insurance Corporation (for short the Corporation ) is a statutory corporation established under the provisions of the Employe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Chief Executive officer of the Corporation; (ii) to co-ordinate, supervise and control the work of the other Principal Officers; (iii) to convene, under the orders of the Chairman, meetings of the Corporation, the Standing Committee and the Medical Benefit Council in accordance with the Act and the Rules and to implement the decisions reached at the meetings; (iv) to enter into contracts on behalf of Corporation in accordance with the Act or the Rules of regulations made thereunder, or the General or special instruction of the Corporation or the Standing Committee; (v) to furnish all returns and documents required by the Act or the Rules to the Central Government and to correspond with the Central Government and the State Governments upon all matters concerning the Corporation ; (vi) to undertake such other duties and to exercise such other powers as may from time to time be entrusted or delegated to him. (2) The Director General may, with the approval of the Standing Committee, by general or special order, delegate any of his powers or duties under the Rules or the Regulations or under any resolution of the Corporation or the Standing Committee, as the case may be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 11, (2) A disciplinary authority competent under these regulations to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of regulation 11 may institute disciplinary proceedings against any employee for the imposition of any penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of regulation 11 notwithstanding that such disciplinary authority is not competent under these regulations to impose any of the latter penalties." In view of the powers conferred under Regulation 12(2), the Director General made and order dated May 10, 1974 in the following terms :- "OFFICE ORDER NO 181 OF 1974 In exercise of the powers conferred by Regulation No. 12(2) of the Employees State Insurance Corporation (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations 1959, the Director General hereby delegates powers to the Officers specified in Schedule-I to impose minor penalties specified in clauses (1) to (iv) of Regulation 11 in respect of employees specified in Schedule- II on condition that the powers shall be exercisable in respect of the employees in their respective regions/offices. This office order supersedes all previous order on the subject without prejudice to any action taken or proceedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Standing Committee, as the case may be, to any officer subordinate to him, subject to such restrictions, limitations and conditions, if any, as the Director General may impose from time to time." T. Abdul Razak (respondent in Civil Appeals Nos. 3952 of 1988 and 3953 of 1988) was employed as Insurance Manager Gr. II/Inspector with the corporation. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by the regional Director of Karnataka Region on the basis of Memorandum dated October 20, 1983. In the said proceedings after holding an enquiry an order was passed by the Director General on March 6, 1987 imposing the penalty of reduction in rank to the post of Head Clerk/Manager Gr.III for a period of one year. The said respondent filed an application (Application No. 473 of 1987 ) before the Tribunal assailing the said order, disciplinary proceedings were started against the said respondent by the Regional Director of Karnataka Region on the basis of another Memorandum dated January 23, 1985. A writ petition was field by the said respondent in the Karnataka High Court challenging the said memorandum and the competence of the Regional Director to initiate the Disciplinary proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... permit subdelegation by the delegate of the powers delegated to him which is not permissible in view of the well know principle delegates non potest delegate. The Tribunal has placed reliance on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in The Employees State Insurance corporation, Banglore v. Shoba Engineers, Bangalore Ors. 1982 (1982 (44) FLR 100, construing the provisions of Section 94-A of the Act. At the outset, it may be stated that in the applications that were filed by the respondents the challenge was mainly to the memoranda dated October 20, 1983, January 21, 1985 and July 18/25, 1986 regarding initiation of disciplinary proceedings by the Regional Director and the order dated March 6, 1987 passed by the Director General imposing the penalty of reduction in rank on respondent, T.Abdul Razak. The order dated March 6, 1987 was passed by the Director General himself who was the disciplinary authority and it is not open to challenge on the ground of delegation of powers by the Director General. The validity of the said order was challenged on the basis that the Regional Director was not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings in which the order was passed. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ations filed by the respondents before the Tribunal has pronounced upon the validity of Rule 16(2), Regulations 12(2) and 13(1), the resolution of the standing Committee dated May 24, 1968 and orders dated May 10, 1974 and April 9, 1981 passed by the Director General it becomes necessary to examine the correctness of the decision of the Tribunal in that regard. The law is well settled that in accordance with the maxim delegates non potest delegate, a statutory power must be exercised only by the body of officer in whom it has been confided, unless sub-delegation of the power is authorized by express words or necessary implication. [ See : Halsbury s Laws of England, 4th Edn. Vol. 1 para 32 p. 34; Craies on Statute Law, 7th Edn p. 316; the Barium Chemicals Ltd. and Anr. v. The Company Law Board and Others, 1966 Supp. SCR 311, at p. 330 and Sahni Silk Mills (P) Ltd. and Anr. v. Employees State Insurance Corporation, 1994 (5) SCC 346, at pp. 350-351 ] In Sahni Silk Mills (P) Ltd. and Anr. v. The employees State Insurance Corporation (supra) this Court has approved the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the Employees State Insurance Corporation, Bangalore v. Shoba Engineers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid to be the powers and functions of the Corporation or the Standing Committee that have been delegated to the Director General by the Corporation or the Standing Committee under Section 94-A. Regulation 12(2) which empowers the Director General to specify by general of special order the authority which can also Act as a disciplinary authority and regulations 13(1) which authorises the Director General to empower by general or special order any other authority to institute disciplinary proceedings against an employee, cannot be regarded as empowering further delegation by the Director General of powers delegated to him. The Tribunal was, Therefore, in error in striking down the words "or any other authority specified in this behalf by a general or special order of the Director General" in Regulation 12(2) and the words "or any other authority empowered by him by general or special order may" in Regulation 13(1) on the view that they permit further delegation by the Director General of the powers delegated to him which is impermissible. The decision of the Tribunal in this regard cannot be upheld and the offending words in Regulations 12(2) and 13(1) must be treated as a valid conf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olution of the Corporation or the Standing Committee. The conferment of such powers or duties under a resolution of the Corporation or the Standing Committee could be by way of delegation of the powers of the Corporation or the Standing Committee under Section 94-A of the Act and empowering the Director General to further delegate the said powers or duties would amount to sub-delegation of a power delegated to him which is impermissible in view of the law laid down in Sahni Sil Mills (supra. Rule 16(2) and the resolution of the Standing Committee dated May 24, 1968, to the extent they empower the director General to further delegate the powers or duties delegated to him by the Corporation or the Standing Committee under a resolution referable to Section 94-A have to be held to be invalid. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set aside insofar as it strikes down the words "or any other authority specified in this behalf by a general or special order of the Director General" in Regulation 12(2) and the words "or any other authority empowered by him by general or special order may" in Regulation 13(1) of the Regulations and quashes the orders date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
