Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In Workmen in B & C Mills v. B & C Mills (1970-I-LLJ-26) which was a case wherein the Company's Mill-manager issued a charge-sheet and the senior Labour Officer recorded evidence, and thereafter on scrutiny of the enquiry proceedings, the Mill-manager passed orders of dismissal, the Labour Court held that the enquiry proceedings are valid, and negativing the contention that the Mill-manager had no jurisdiction to delegate to another Officer the power to hold the enquiry, it was also held that the Mill-manager had acted legally in delegating his powers to the Senior Labour Officer in collecting necessary evidence, and that there is no prohibition in the Standing Order of what he had done, and that the requirement is that, the enquiry has to be in conformity with the principles of natural justice. It was further held that the Mill-manager, who has the authority, is competent to impose punishment, and he has gone into the evidence and ultimately found the worker guilty of misconduct and imposed punishment of dismissal, and therefore, there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, it is the disciplinary authority, who could issue the chargesheet, but could delegate the holding of enquiry to another, which is permissible in law; whereas in the instant case, the Governing Council which is the appointing authority, and in turn the disciplinary authority, had not considered whether disciplinary proceeding requires to be initiated or not. Assuming that the Chairman of the Governing Council had been delegated by the Governing Council to initiate disciplinary proceedings, he ought to have framed the charge-sheet. Whether it is permissible, is dealt with later on. He cannot further delegate it to the Principal. No resolution is produced to show that he had the authority to institute, and even if so, to further delegate it. Whether the disciplinary authority is a single person or body of persons, it is the disciplinary authority, which alone could initiate disciplinary proceeding. It is no answer to claim that it being composed of several persons, it cannot discharge its duties as a disciplinary authority, when it is invested with authority to decide upon it. The decision reported in Pradyat Kumar v. C. J. of Calcutta (AIR) 1956 S.C. 225 deals with the power of the Chief Justice of the High Court to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the staff members of the High Court, and as the exercise of the power to appoint or dismiss an officer is an administrative power, and as a statutory functionary exercising such a power cannot be said to have delegated his functions merely by deputing a responsible or competent official to enquire and report, he can delegate to another Judge the enquiry into the charges. What cannot be delegaed, except where the law specifically so provides, is the ultimate responsibility for the exercise of such power. Hence, even in this decision, it is clear that the initiation of proceedings must be by disciplinary authority i.e. the Chief Justice of the High Court. In spite of so many authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court on this subject, learned Counsel Mr. Subramaniam had chosen to rely upon the decision reported in Sukhendra Chandra v. Union Territory, Tripura (AIR) 1962 Tripura 15, but even therein interpreting Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, it was held that though the rule states that the disciplinary authority has to frame the charges, it will amount to the same thing if he directs another who conducted the preliminary enquiry to draft the charges and get it approval. Hence, if any one assisting him is to draft the charges and secure the approval of the disciplinary authority, then it would become valid. This decision has no relevance for the point involved herein. He then relies upon the decision reported in Shyam Lal Yadev v. Smt. Kusun Dhawan (AIR) 1979 SC 1947 to emphasise that Courts would be reluctant to interfere with any orders passed by autonomous bodies managing their internal affairs in relation to employees when power to deal with them, is made out. Even in that decision, it was pointed out that, if jurisdictional deficiency in the Committee is made out, then relief has to be granted.