Delhi High Court - Orders
United India Insurance Company Limited vs National Commission For Scheduled ... on 28 August, 2020
Author: Jyoti Singh
Bench: Jyoti Singh
$~A-10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5771/2020
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Vineet Malhotra, Advocate
versus
NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED
TRIBES & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
ORDER
% 28.08.2020 Hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing. C.M. 20855/2020 (Exemption from filing Court Fee) This application has been filed seeking exemption from filing requisite court fee. The application is disposed of with a direction to the Applicant to file the same within 72 hours from the date of resumption of regular functioning of the Court.
W.P.(C) 5771/2020 and C.M. 20856/2020 Petitioner herein, a Public Sector Insurance Company, challenges the order dated 16.01.2020 passed by Respondent No.1 on the ground that the order is in excess of the jurisdiction of the Commission. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that during the period from 01.01.2005 to 31.12.2005, Government of Himachal Pradesh had taken a Group Accident Insurance Policy for 150000 employees at the rate of Rs.2 Lakhs per employee. The total premium paid to the Company for the said policy was Rs.1,36,50,000/-.
CBI, with regard to the aforesaid matter, registered a case being Regular Case No.2(A)/2005 against Respondent No.2 and others under Sections 420/409/120B of the IPC read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Respondent No.2 was convicted by the Trial Court on 30.06.2011. The order of his conviction was upheld upto the Supreme Court. On the basis of conviction in the criminal case, the Petitioner by an order dated 08.05.2017 relying upon Rule 30(i) read with Rule 23 of the United India Insurance Conduct (Discipline) Rules, 1975, passed an order dismissing Respondent No.2 from service and disqualifying him from further employment and further directed that he be considered on deemed suspension with effect from 28.11.2016.
Mr. Vineet Malhotra learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that as a counter blast of the said order and with a view to harass the Petitioner, Respondent No.2 filed a baseless complaint before Respondent No.1, alleging that his dismissal from service was illegal and discriminatory. The Commission on the complaint of Respondent no.2 passed an order on 16.01.2020, relevant part of which reads as under :-
―7. In the light of the above observations, the Commission. recommends that the CMD UIICL will review the petitioner's case afresh and will conduct a departmental inquiry taking into consideration petitioner's defence documents and Hon'ble High Court of Manipur's judgment to provide justice to the Petitioner. The inquiry should be fair and impartial and an opportunity to defend the case be provided to the petitioner. The UIICL management will also consider the petitioner's reinstatement into services in positive way. The petitioner is also advised to submit a review petition to the UIICL management for consideration and further appropriate action by the Company management. The UIICL will also submit an action taken report to the Commission within 15 days''.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that order of Respondent No.1 is without jurisdiction and contrary to law. It has exercised jurisdiction which is unwarranted and unauthorised. The action of the Petitioner is in accordance with the Service Rules and based on the conviction of the Respondent No.2 which was upheld upto the Supreme Court. It is further submitted that the powers and jurisdiction of Respondent No.1 are well defined under Article 338 of the Constitution of India and it cannot pass any orders which are in the realm of a service matter. Learned counsel draws the attention of the Court to several judgements in this regard.
He further points out that de hors the said grounds, the Commission has also failed to appreciate that Respondent No.2 has already availed of the remedy of a statutory appeal under the Service Rules and in any case two parallel proceedings cannot be prosecuted by him.
Having heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, I am of the prima facie view that there is force in the contention of the Petitioner. Powers of the Commission are clearly circumscribed in Article 338 of the Constitution of India, which reads as under, for ready reference:
―Article 338 National Commission for Scheduled Castes - (1) There shall be a Commission for the Scheduled Castes to be known as the National Commission for the Scheduled Castes.
xxx xxx xxx (5) It shall be duty of the Commission--
(a) to investigate and monitor all matters relating to the safeguards provided for the Scheduled Castes under this Constitution or under any other law for the time being in force or under any order of the Government and to evaluate the working of such safeguards;
(b) to inquire into specific complaints with respect to the deprivation of rights and safeguards of the Scheduled Castes;
(c) to participate and advise on the planning process of socio-economic development of the Scheduled Castes and to evaluate the progress of their development under the Union and any State;
(d) to present to the President, annually and at such other times as the Commission may deem fit, reports upon the working of those safeguards;
(e) to make in such report recommendations as to the measures that should be taken by the Union or any State for the effective implementation of those safeguards and other measures for the protection, welfare and socio- economic development of the Scheduled Castes; and
(f) to discharge such other functions in relation to the protection, welfare and development and advancement of the Scheduled Castes as the President may, subject to the provisions any law made by Parliament, by rule specify.
xxx xxx xxx (8) The Commission shall, while investigating any matter referred to in sub-clause (a) or inquiring into any complaint referred to in sub-clause (b) of clause (5), have all the powers of a civil court trying a suit and in particular in respect of the following matters, namely:--
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person from any part of India and examining him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of any documents;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;
(d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court or office;
(e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses and documents;
(f) any other matter which the President may, by rule, determine.‖ Supreme Court in All India Indian Overseas Bank SC & ST Employees Welfare Association and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.: 1996 Supp(8) SCR 295 in respect of the Powers of the Commission, observed as under:
―10. Interestingly, here, in clause (8) of Article 338, the words used are ―the Commission shall ... have all the powers of the Civil Court trying a suit‖. But the words ―all the powers of a Civil Court‖ have to be exercised ―while investigating any matter referred to in sub-clause (a) or inquiring into any complaint referred to in sub-clause (b) of clause 5‖. All the procedural powers of a civil court are given to the Commission for the purpose of investigating and inquiring into these matters and that too for that limited purpose only. The powers of a civil court of granting injunctions, temporary or permanent, do not inhere in the Commission nor can such a power be inferred or derived from a reading of clause (8) of Article 338 of the Constitution."
Three Coordinate Benches of this Court have had the occasion to analyze the parameters of exercise of power by the Commission, in the following cases:
1. Maharaja Agrasen College & Anr. v. Narendra Kumar & Ors., W.P. (C) 521/2018, decided on 26.03.2019;
2. Union of India & Anr. v. National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Anr., W.P.(C) 2390/2012, decided on 28.05.2014;
3. Delhi Transport Corporation v. Manohar Lal and Anr., W.P.(C) 1613/2013, decided on 16.02.2016.
In Maharaja Agrasen (Supra), the Court held as under:-
''7. The controversy involved in the case is, ex facie, a service matter. It is now a settled position that the NCSC does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate service matters. The Supreme Court in All India Indian Overseas Bank SC & ST Employees Welfare Association and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.: 1996 Supp(8) SCR 295 had examined the powers of the NCSC and had held that although the NCSC has certain powers of a Court, it was not a Court and thus would not adjudicate disputes. The said view was also followed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court in Union of India v. National Commission for Scheduled .Castes and Anr.: W.P.(C) 2390/2012 decided on 28.05.2014 and Delhi Transport Corporation v. Manohar Lal and Anr.: W.P.(C) 1613/2013 decided on 16.02.2016. This court had also considered the powers of the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes under Article 338A of the Constitution of India, which is similarly worded as Article 338 of the Constitution of India.
8. The learned counsel for NCSC submits that the impugned order is only a recommendation and is not an order. The said contention is unpersuasive as the plain reading of the operative part of the impugned order indicates that the petitioner has been called upon to submit an action taken report Clearly, NCSC is insisting on the implementation of its recommendations. Even, otherwise the tenor of the impugned order clearly indicates that it is an order although. couched as a recommendation, it is in substance, an order. "
In light of Article 338 of the Constitution and the judgements referred to above, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that there is a jurisdictional error in the impugned order. In Maharaja Agrasen (supra), this Court has clearly observed that the Commission cannot function as a Court to adjudicate Service Matters. The direction passed by Respondent No. 1 to review the case of Respondent No. 2 afresh and interference in the disciplinary proceedings is prima facie an exercise of jurisdiction in a service matter and beyond the power and jurisdiction of Respondent No. 1.
Issue notice to the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2, returnable on 15.10.2020. Petitioner is at liberty to serve the Respondents via electronic mode. Till next date of hearing the impugned order dated 16.01.2020 shall remain stayed.
JYOTI SINGH, J AUGUST 28, 2020 yg