Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

24. The rule in Taylor Vs. Taylor adopted by Jassel M.R. applies where the whole aim and object of the legislature will be plainly defeated if the command to do the thing in a particular manner did not imply a prohibition to do it in any other (Maxwell Interpretation of Statutes 11th Edition pp. 362.363).

25. We find substance in the contention of Shri B.D. Mandhyan that where the highest disciplinary authority, vested with the powers to dismiss the employee, has to exercise the powers of suspension, such authority is not required to wait until body constituted by it even if statutory makes a recommendation to it to do so. The delegation of powers to conduct departmental enquiry may be coupled with a power to make recommendation to suspend but that the executive authority as the final disciplinary authority can always exercise such powers even without such recommendation. In Pradyat Kumar Bose v. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of Calcutta high Court AIR 1956 SC 285 the Supreme Court held in para-11 that no judicial tribunal can delegate its functions unless it is enabled to do so expressly or by necessary implications. The exercise of the power to appoint or dismiss an officer is an administrative power. The opportunity to show cause and an enquiry simulating judicial standards precedes the exercise thereof. A statutory functionary exercising such a power cannot be said to have delegated his functions merely by deputing a responsible and competent official to enquire and report. That is the ordinary mode of exercise of any administrative power. A functionary, who has to decide an administrative matter, of the nature involved in this case, can obtain the material on which he is to act in such manner as may be feasible and convenient, provided only the affected party has a fair opportunity to correct or contradict any relevant and prejudicial material. It was further held that when Article 229 (1) of Constitution of India vests the power of appointment in the Chief Justice the power is equally effective to vest in him the power of dismissal. This results from Section 16 of the General Clauses Act which by virtue of Article 367 (1) applies to the constructions of the word 'appointment' and necessarily includes the power to suspend or dismiss. The Supreme Court held that Pradyat Kumar Bose appellant was not entitled to the protection under Article 320 (3) (c). The Chief Justice of the High Court was not required to have prior consultation with the Public Service Commission, for dismissing the High Court staff.