Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (3.25 seconds)
Superintending Engineer, Madurai ... vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, ... on 1 March, 2002
cites
Section 17B in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
P.V. Srinivasa Sastry And Others vs Comptroller And Auditor General And ... on 11 December, 1992
In (P.V. SRINIVASA SASTRY AND OTHERS Vs. COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL AND OTHERS) legality of an order made by an authority lower than the appointing authority to initiate a departmental proceedings was in question. While considering the abovesaid aspect, it was observed by the Supreme Court as follows:- "Article 311(2) says that no person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or holds civil post under the Union or a State " shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed". Whether this guarantee includes within itself the guarantee that even the disciplinary proceeding should be initiated only by the appointing authority? It is well known that departmental proceeding consists of several stages: the initiation of the proceeding, the inquiry in respect of the charges levelled against that delinquent officer and the final order which is passed after the conclusion of the inquiry. Article 311(1) guarantees that no person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. But Article 311(1) does not say that even the departmental proceeding must be initiated only by the appointing authority. Any such rule shall not be inconsistent with Article 311 of the Constitution because it will amount to providing an additional safeguard or protection to the holder of a civil post. But in the absence of any such rule, this right or guarantee does not flow from Article 311 of the Constitution. It need not be pointed out that initiation of a departmental proceeding per se does not visit the officer concerned with any evil consequences, and the framers of the Constitution did not consider it necessary to guarantee even that to holders of civil posts under the Union of India or under the State Government. At the same time this will not give right to authorities having the same rank as that of the officer against whom proceeding is to be initiated. In absence of a rule, any superior authority who can be held to be the controlling authority, can initiate such proceeding."
Inspector General Of Police And Anr vs Thavasiappan on 25 January, 1996
10. Aforesaid decision was followed in (INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND ANOTHER Vs. THAVASIAPPAN) wherein the principle was reiterated that in the absence of any specific rule, the initiation of proceedings by an authority higher in rank to the delinquent (controlling authority) is not vitiated and it is not necessary always that the departmental proceedings has to be initiated only by the appointing authority.
Director General, Esi & Anr vs T. Abdul Razak Etc on 8 July, 1996
11. Similar views are again expressed in (Steel Authority of India and another Vs. Dr. R.K. Diawakar and others) wherein the Supreme Court relied upon the decision of (Director General, ESI Vs. T. Abdul Razak) and quoted with approval the following observations:- " With regard to initiation of disciplinary proceedings by the Regional Director, we find that the legal position is well settled that it is not necessary that the authority competent to impose the penalty must initiate the disciplinary proceedings and that the proceedings can be initiated by any superior authority who can be held to be controlling authority who may be an officer subordinate to the appointing authority. The Regional Director, being the officer-in-charge of the region, was the controlling authority in respect of the respondents. He could institute the disciplinary proceedings against the respondents even in the absence of specific conferment of a power in that regard."
State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Shardul Singh on 2 December, 1959
12. It has to be noticed that all the Supreme Court decisions have placed reliance upon an earlier decision of the Supreme Court (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Shardul Singh) Unfortunately the various decisions of the Supreme Court holding the field have not been noticed by the Division Bench. Moreover, since subsequent Supreme Court decisions have categorically taken a contrary view, it must be held that the opinion expressed in the Division Bench of this Court cannot be followed in preference to the views expressed by the Supreme Court subsequently.
Steel Authority Of India Ltd. And Anr. vs R.K. Enterprises on 22 January, 2002
11. Similar views are again expressed in (Steel Authority of India and another Vs. Dr. R.K. Diawakar and others) wherein the Supreme Court relied upon the decision of (Director General, ESI Vs. T. Abdul Razak) and quoted with approval the following observations:- " With regard to initiation of disciplinary proceedings by the Regional Director, we find that the legal position is well settled that it is not necessary that the authority competent to impose the penalty must initiate the disciplinary proceedings and that the proceedings can be initiated by any superior authority who can be held to be controlling authority who may be an officer subordinate to the appointing authority. The Regional Director, being the officer-in-charge of the region, was the controlling authority in respect of the respondents. He could institute the disciplinary proceedings against the respondents even in the absence of specific conferment of a power in that regard."
1