9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 689X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the appellant. The Corporation is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act. It is a Government company. The appellant has been working as a Service Engineer in the said Corporation at Hapur. It is the case of the Corporation that the appellant had committed serious financial irregularities which came to the light of the Corporation and in respect thereof the Managing Director of the Corporation instituted a departmental enquiry sometime in October, 1997. The charges were found proved and ultimately the Managing Director passed the order dated 29.7.2000 dismissing the services of the appellant with immediate effect. An appeal was preferred to the Chairman of the Corporation against the order of punishment. The appellate authority by order dated 14.9.2000 partly allowed the appeal and ordered for reinstatement of the appellant with an observation that if the Managing Director desires he may inflict minor punishment of censure against the appellant. It was also found by the appellate authority that no charges were proved against the appellant nor the Corporation has suffered any financial loss. The conduct of the appellant, it has been observed, was infirm in following th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resolution, the U.P. Rules of 1999 have been made applicable to the officers/employees of the Corporation and they were permitted to be incorporated in the Corporation's service rules of 1984. Rule 13 of the U.P. Rules of 1999 provides as under : Revision - Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Government may of its own motion or on the representation of concerned Government servant call for the record of any case decided by an authority subordinate to it in the exercise of any power conferred on such authority by these rules; and (a) confirm, modify or reverse the order passed by such authority; or (b) direct that further inquiry he held in the case, or (c) reduce or enhance the penalty imposed by the order; or (d) make such other order in the case as it may deem fit.'' The U.P. Rules of 1999 relate to the employees of the State Government. The revisional power has thus been vested in the State Government to exercise the same on its own motion or on the representation of concerned government servant. In exercise of this power the State Government could call for the record of any case decided by an authority subordinate to it and pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the state government in the U.P. Rules of 1999. The authorities of a foreign organization cannot be vested with such powers merely because of adoption of the rules on a particular subject as applicable to other organizations. The same procedure or protection will be applicable and available to the employees of the corporation as may be provided under the U.P. Rules of 1999 but the corresponding authorities would obviously be different. Otherwise authorities of the other department whose Rules are adopted may get wide powers like looking into any records of the organization adopting the rules and exercising powers like in this case vested under rule 13, upsetting, modifying, reversing orders passed by the authorities of the adopting organization. The learned counsel for the appellant also draws our attention to rule 13 to indicate that if the rule is to be applicable, as it is, then the government will have power to revise the order only in case it has been passed by an authority subordinate to it. The Managing Director or the Chairman are the authorities and functionaries of the corporation. Incumbent of such offices may even though some times be Govt. servants on deputation but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. Anr. v. Employees ' Union and Anr. In this case, in the appointment letter which was issued to the seasonal employees, it was specified therein that their conditions of service shall be governed by Model Standing Orders. Some of the provisions of the Model Standing Orders provided for making the services of some categories of employees permanent. The seasonal employees also claimed the same benefit. It has been held that it was incorrect to say that all the Model Standing Orders would be applicable to the seasonal employees. It has been observed that the Model Standing Orders would be applicable to the seasonal employees mutatis-mutandis. It is further observed that the Model Standing Order no.4-B in particular, will be inapplicable to the seasonal employees because of the very nature of their employment and hence it could not be read into service conditions of the seasonal employees even though it was mentioned in their letter of appointments that they shall be governed by the provisions of the Model Standing Orders. It was further held that only such conditions of service would be applicable which could be applied to the seasonal employees and not the other conditions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ciplinary action, suspension and subsistance allowance payment related rules and orders of the U.P. Government will be applicable on officers and employees of the Corporation. In view of the decision of the Board of Directors and the resolution and later on as a consequence thereof substitution of Rule 24-A in the General Service Regulations of 1984 of the Corporation, it is clear that the rules as applicable to the employees of the U.P. Government, in the matters relating to disciplinary action, suspension or subsistence allowance etc. were made applicable to the employees of the Corporation. It appears that since for the employees of the state government some new rules were promulgated namely, the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, a second resolution was passed on 10.7.2001 specifically incorporating those rules for the purposes of disciplinary matters against the employees of the Corporation. In this light of the matter the question of giving retrospective effect to the U.P. Rules of 1999 does not arise. We feel that even if no specific resolution was passed for incorporation of U.P. Rules of 1999 on 7.10.2001 even then it would not have made any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
