9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (4) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was to supervise that construction. The respondent, it is alleged, demanded the bribe as a reward for recording correct measurements. Brij Bhushan Lal did not, in fact, want to pay the gratifi- cation. He therefore informed the Special Police Establish- ment authorities who on 10-11-1971 trapped the accused and allegedly recovered the tainted money from his possession. The sanction for the prosecution of the accused was accorded by Brig. Naresh Prasad, Chief Engineer, North Western Zone, Chandigarh on 24-6-1971. The Special Judge, Ambala tried and convicted the accused on the aforesaid charges and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprison- ment and a fine of ₹ 1,000/-. Tandon appealed to the High Court. The appeal was heard by a learned Single Judge who held that on 24-6-1971, when Brig. Naresh Prasad Chief Engineer, North Western Zone passed the order of sanction for prosecution, he had under the relevant Rules, no plenary or delegated power to appoint to a post in Class III Service and that such a power was delegated to Chief Engineers of Zones for the first time on 14-1-1972. The learned Judge noted that the authority competent to appoint the accused-respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1965 Rules) . One of the provisions of the 1952 Rules, which is relevant for our purpose, and which has substantially been repro- duced in the 1965 Rules, is Rule 10. It reads as under: 10. All first appointments to Class I and Class II Services shall be made by the Govern- ment. All first appointments to Class III and Class IV services shall be made by the author- ities specified in column 3 of Schedule IV in respect of posts mentioned against them or by officers empowered in this behalf by such authorities. (emphasis added). schedule IV reffered to in the rule ran as follows: Schedule IV (Vide Rules, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 19). SI. Posts Appointing Auth- Authority em- No. orities in respect of Class III and Class IV posts(vide rule 10) powered to im- pose penalties (i),(ii),(iv) and (v) of rule 13 for Class II officers (Vider. 14) 1 to 7 8. Posts in lower for mation under E-in-C's Branch E-in-C C. Es. of the Commands. X X X. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13 and 14 of 1952 in all material aspects, excepting two, namely, (1) Suspension has been taken out of the category of penalties, and (2) the Explanation appended to Rule 14 has been omitted because in the 1965 Rules, the subject matter of that Explanation has been made a part of the definition of Appointing Authority given in Rule 2(a). The main submission of Mr. Sachthey learned Counsel for the appellant is that by an order communicated per letter, dated 27-4-1956, made under Rule 10 of the 1956 Rules, (.subsequently reiterated in letter dated 23-1-1963) the Engineer-in-Chief had empowered all Chief Engineers in Military Engineering Service to make first appointments, inter alia, to posts in Class III Service, and that the operation of the aforesaid order was preserved and contin- ued by the saving clause in Rule 34(1) of the 1965 Rules. On these premises, it is maintained, that the High Court was wrong in holding that the Chief Engineer of the North- Western Zone, Chandigarh. was not the 'appointing authority competent to remove the accused from service. As against this, Mr. Hardyal Hardy, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the order, dated 27-4-56, ex- pressl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber, 1962 ? The material part of this letter reads as under: TO The Chief Engineer, Southern Command, Poona Eastern Command, Lucknow Western Command, Simla X X X Subject: Civilians in DefenCe Services (Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1962). With reference to Rule 10 of the Civilians in Defence Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962, I hereby authorise the authorities mentioned hereunder to make first appointments to Class III and IV Services to the extent indicated below: Authority Posts (a) Chief Engineers . . . . . All posts with the excepetion of per- (b) CWO, NDES . . . . . manent appointments to the following categories: (i) Superintendent, B/R Grade I. 2. Under Rule 14(b) of CDS (CC A) Rules, 1952 the under- mentioned authorities are empowered to impose penalties referred to in Rule 13 ibid, to the extent indicated below :- (a) Chief Engineers and Penalties at (i), (ii), (iv) and (v) of Rule 13 on Class III employees in respect of whom E-in-C is the appointing authority, A perusal of this letter will show that it is (among others) addressed to the Chief Engineers, Southern Command, Eastern Command, Lucknow, and Wester ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l be number of CEs/CSWE...on zonal basis. These two letters unmistakably show that the zonal Chief Engineers are a class apart from the Chief Engineers of Com- mands. Although extensive financial powers have been dele- gated to the Zonal Chief Engineers, which are almost the same as that of the Chief Engineers of the Commands, the fact remains that they are under the overall administrative control of the Chief Engineer of the Commands concerned. In this view of the matter the scope of the delegation of the powers made under the letter dated 27-4-1956, must be construed as a delegation only to the Chief Engineers of Commands, as distinguished from the Chief Engineers of Zones which were then not even in embryo. This takes us to the letter dated January 23, 1963 from the Army H.Qrs., E-in-C's Branch. In the first place, this letter is not signed by the E-in-C. It appears to have been signed by some other person for E-in-Chief ; secondly it does not purport to have been issued pursuant to any sepa- rately passed order of the E-in-C expressly delegating under Rule 10, the powers of appointment to posts in Class III Service. The opening sentence of this letter, no doubt, ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
