Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Nuclear Powar Corporation Of India ... vs Sushil Kumar Govil ... on 23 April, 2024
Author: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
[2024:RJ-JD:17565-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 237/2023
1. Nuclear Powar Corporation Of India Limited (A
Government Of India Enterprise), Rawatbhata Rajasthan
Site, Po Anushakti, District Chittorgarh (Raj.) Through Its
Site Director.
2. The Operation Superintendent, Rr Site-7 And 8, Nuclear
Powar Corporation Of India Limited, Po Anushakti,
Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh (Raj.).
----Appellants
Versus
Sushil Kumar Govil S/o Shri Chandra Mohan Govil, T-3/34-K,
Anupratap Colony, P.o. Bhabha Nagar, Rawatbhata, District
Chittorgarh (Raj.).
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Nahar.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinay Jain and Mr. Darshan Jain.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
JUDGMENT
23/04/2024 Heard.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the order of suspension dated 19.02.2015 as well as charge-sheet issued on 09.04.2015 have been quashed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
3. Assailing the correctness and validity of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, learned counsel for the appellant would argue that even though on the date when the powers of suspension and issuance of charge-sheet were exercised by the Site Director, he was not the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority, yet he was higher than the appointing (Downloaded on 25/04/2024 at 08:39:41 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:17565-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-237/2023] authority and disciplinary authority, he being the appellate authority in the matter of disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the order could not be said to be without jurisdiction. The second submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in any case, even if it is assumed that the Site Director was neither the appointing authority nor the disciplinary authority, it is not a case where any prejudice was caused to the respondent employee inasmuch as he had remedy of appeal before the Executive Director (Technical) and a remedy of further revision before the Chairman and Managing Director.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supports the order of the learned Single Judge.
5. Indisputably, the Certified Standing Orders, which were notified and were in force on the date when the suspension order was passed on 19.02.2015 and the charge-sheet was issued on 09.04.2015, the Station Director was the appointing authority as well as the disciplinary authority. The Certified Standing Orders being notified under the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, have statutory force.
6. Clause 20.0 of the Certified Standing Orders deals with the power to place an employee under suspension. It reads as below:
"20.0 SUSPENSION 20.1 The Appointing Authority or any authority empowered and notified in that behalf by the corporation may place a workman under suspension:
(a) where disciplinary proceedings against him is contemplated or is pending into a grave charge/charges; or
(b) where case against him in respect of any criminal offence is reported or under investigation or trial; or (Downloaded on 25/04/2024 at 08:39:41 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:17565-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-237/2023] Provided further that in case an order of suspension is made by any authority other than Appointing Authority empowered in that behalf, such Authority shall forthwith report to the Appointing Authority the circumstances in which the order was made.
20.2 In the following cases, the workman will be deemed to have been placed under suspension:
(a) Where a workman has been detained in police custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding 48 hours.
(b) Where a workman who is convicted by a Court of law for an offence is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding 48 hours and is not forthwith dismissed or removed from the services of the Corporation consequent to such conviction.
(c) Where a penalty of removal/dismissal from service imposed upon a workman under suspension, is set aside on appeal under these orders and the case is remitted for further inquiry or action or with any other directions, from the date of the original order of removal/dismissal.
(d) Where a penalty of removal/dismissal from service imposed upon a workman is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of or by a decision of a Court of Law and the Appointing Authority, on consideration of circumstances of case decides to hold a further inquiry against the workman on the allegation on which the penalty of removal/dismissal from service was originally imposed, from the date of the original order of removal/dismissal from service.
20.3 Where a workman is suspended or is deemed to have been suspended and any other disciplinary proceeding into any grave charges is commenced against him during the continuance of that suspension, the Appointing Authority, may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct that the workman shall continue to be under suspension until the termination of all or any such proceedings. 20.4 Review of Suspension: The suspension of the workman shall be reviewed within ninety days by the appropriate Review Committee constituted for the purpose. The Committee will submit its recommendations to the Disciplinary Authority as to whether the suspension may continue or otherwise. The Disciplinary Authority takes the decision to continue or revoke the suspension within 90 days after examining the recommendations of the Committee. 20.5 An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this Para may at any time be revoked by the authority which made or is deemed to have made the (Downloaded on 25/04/2024 at 08:39:41 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:17565-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-237/2023] order or by any authority to which that authority is subordinate.
20.6 The station of posting immediately before his suspension will be the headquarters of the suspended workman. No workman shall leave his headquarters without prior permission during the suspension period without any reasonable cause.
20.7 A workman placed under suspension or deemed to have been placed under suspension may appeal against the suspension order to the Appellate Authority within 45 days from the date of his suspension.
20.8 When a workman under suspension dies before the disciplinary proceedings instituted against him are concluded, such proceedings shall be deemed to have been terminated by reason of his death.
20.9 Subsistence allowance: Payment of subsistence allowance to a workman placed under suspension shall be governed by the provisions under Section 10-A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946."
7. The said clause confers power on the appointing authority or any authority, which stands notified. On the date when the standing order was passed, there was no notification empowering the Site Director to exercise the power of suspension.
8. Similarly when the charge-sheet was issued by the Site Director on 09.04.2015, he was not the disciplinary authority notified either under the Certified Standing Orders or separately notified as such on that date.
9. Therefore, it is quite clear that the Site Director though was notified appellate authority, he was not an authority empowered to exercise the power of suspension or even to act as a disciplinary authority.
10. The power conferred on the Site Director under the Certified Standing Orders is of appellate authority. The appellate authority constituted under the Certified Standing Orders, in absence of any (Downloaded on 25/04/2024 at 08:39:41 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:17565-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-237/2023] delegation could not usurp the power of appointing authority or disciplinary authority. It is not a case where the rule itself postulates that power to place an employee under suspension or act as a disciplinary authority could be exercised by the appointing authority and disciplinary authority or by any authority to whom the appointing authority and disciplinary authority are subordinate. There is a clear division of powers under the scheme of Certified Standing Orders. The appellate authority cannot usurp the power other than those conferred on him under the law. In other words, the appellate authority has power to act as an appellate authority only when the order at the first instance is passed by the appointing authority or disciplinary authority whether it is a case of suspension or imposition of penalty.
11. It is not necessary to go into the other aspects of prejudice because order of suspension and issuance of charge-sheet lack jurisdiction. Therefore, there is no scope for interference with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
12. The appeal is dismissed.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ 4-a.asopa/-
(Downloaded on 25/04/2024 at 08:39:41 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)