IMPORTANT POINT
Revisional power as vested in State Government under Rule 13 of U.P. Rules of 1999 shall be not be available to State Government in respect of employees of Corporation even where Corporation had adopted the rules by resolution.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW-U.P. Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999-Rule 13-Appellant was working as Service Engineer in Govt. Company-On a charge of financial irregularity found proved, Managing Director passed order dismissing appellant from service-Appellate authority, Chairman of Corporation allowed appeal and set aside order of punishment -Corporation took the order of Chairman in revision, jurisdiction exercised by State Govt., revision was allowed and order of dismissal was restored-Writ questioning order of revisional authority was dismissed-Point relating to jurisdiction of State Government to exercise power under Rule 13 was found in favour of Corporation-Appeal question for consideration was whether or not revisional power was available to State Government in relation to employees of Corporation?-By adopting rules of State Government on the subject, Corporation could be said to have adopted rules and the authorities unless specifically provided for-Authorities of foreign organisation could not be vested with such power merely because of adoption of rules on a particular subject-Judgment of High Court holding that revisional power shall be available in respect of employees of Corporation was erroneous and unsustainable.
       Held : The question for consideration is as to whether or not this revisional power is available to the State Government in relation to the employees of the Corporation. In this connection it may be observed that a Corporation or any other organization may adopt the rules on any subject, as may be applicable in the State Government or any other organization. But by doing so only the rules are adopted not the authorities unless specifically provided for. Otherwise it would result in a queer situation where the authorities of the organization whose rules on a particular subject have been adopted by another organization would start exercising those powers in relation to the matters of the organization adopting the rules, which would obviously not be permissible. If the organisation adopts the rules pertaining to disciplinary matters as prevalent in the government or other organization, it would only mean that same procedure would be applicable in respect of the employees of the organization adopting the rules namely, the manner of holding an enquiry into the charges, opportunity of hearing, provision for appeal or revision would be applicable in respect of the employees of the organization adopting the rules but such powers would be exercisable by the corresponding authorities in the organization adopting the rules. If some power is vested in a particular authority, for example, in this case in the state government or for that matter it could be with any other officer or functionary of the state government, would not subject the employees of a corporation or organization to the control of those authorities of the organization whose rules have been adopted. If an appeal is provided to be preferred against an order of punishment, to an authority who is higher than the punishing authority, that remedy may be available to the employees of the organization adopting the rules for preferring the appeal to the higher authority of his own organization but not that the appellate authority would also be the same belonging to the organization whose rules are adopted. Similarly, if any authority corresponding or parallel to the state government is available in the corporation such authority may exercise revisional powers as conferred upon the state government in the U.P. Rules of 1999. The authorities of a foreign organization cannot be vested with such powers merely because of adoption of the rules on a particular subject as applicable to other organizations. The same procedure or protection will be applicable and available to the employees of the corporation as may be provided under the U.P. Rules of 1999 but the corresponding authorities would obviously be different. Otherwise authorities of the other department whose Rules are adopted may get wide powers like looking into any records of the organization adopting the rules and exercising powers like in this case vested under rule 13, upsetting, modifying, reversing orders passed by the authorities of the adopting organization. (Para 6)
       The expression "mutatis-mutandis", itself implies applicability of any provision with necessary changes in points of detail. The rules which are adopted, as has been done in the present case, make the principles embodied in the rules applicable and not the details pertaining to particular authority or the things of that nature. In the present case, we find that the High Court has found that the U.P. Rules of 1999 have been adopted mutatis-mutandis. Therefore, in our view, the revisional power which has been vested in the state government in respect of the employees of the state may be exercisable by an authority parallel or corresponding thereto in the Corporation in regard to employees of the Corporation. (Para 10)
       In our view, the judgment of the High Court holding that the revisional power as vested in the state government under rule 13 of the U.P. Rules of 1999 shall be available in respect of the employees of the Corporation is erroneous and not sustainable. The High Court abruptly formed the opinion without examining the question at all. We, however, need not go into the question, as sought to be raised, as to who would be an authority parallel or corresponding to the state government in the Corporation to whom a revision may lie, since it is not involved in this case. (Paras 12 and 13)

JUDGMENT

Brijesh Kumar, J.-Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellant challenging the order passed by the State of Uttar Pradesh purportedly in exercise of its revisional power under Rule 13 of U.P. Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P. Rules of 1999 ) setting aside the order passed by the Chairman of the U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation (for short the Corporation ) and restoring the order passed by the Managing Director imposing penalty of dismissal against the appellant.

3. The Corporation is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act. It is a Government company. The appellant has been working as a Service Engineer in the said Corporation at Hapur. It is the case of the Corporation that the appellant had committed serious financial irregularities which came to the light of the Corporation and in respect thereof the Managing Director of the Corporation instituted a departmental enquiry some time in October, 1997. The charges were found proved and ultimately the Managing Director passed the order dated 29.7.2000 dismissing the services of the appellant with immediate effect. An appeal was preferred to the Chairman of the Corporation against the order of punishment. The appellate authority by order dated 14.9.2000 partly allowed the appeal and ordered for reinstatement of the appellant with an observation that if the Managing Director desires he may inflict minor punishment of censure against the appellant. It was also found by the appellate authority that no charges were proved against the appellant nor the Corporation has suffered any financial loss. The conduct of the appellant, it has been observed, was "infirm" in following the departmental rules and procedure and he has been careless in his dealings.

4. It appears that against the order passed by the Chairman reinstating the appellant, revisional power of the State Government as provided under Rule 13 of the U.P. Rules of 1999, was invoked by the Corporation. The State Government allowed the revision and found that charges of serious financial irregularities were proved against the appellant. The punishment of dismissal as inflicted by the Managing Director was justified. The order passed by the Chairman allowing the appeal was set aside and the order of punishment was restored.

5. It appears that before the State Government a plea was raised about the jurisdiction of the State Government to entertain the revision under Rule 13 of the U.P. Rules, 1999. In the revisional order, however, it is mentioned that the above said U.P. Rules of 1999 were adopted by the Board of Directors of the Corporation, in that view of the matter the State Government was empowered to hear the revision. This point relating to the jurisdiction of the State Government, to exercise the power under Rule 13 was raised before the High Court also. The High Court observed that by means of a resolution dated 10.7.2001 the Corporation had mutatis-mutandis adopted the U.P. Rules of 1999. Hence the provisions of the aforesaid rules are applicable to the employees of the Corporation. After quoting the provisions for revision namely, rule 13, the High Court opined that since the aforesaid rules are adopted by the Corporation, the State Government has power to entertain the revision.

6. We may straightaway address to the question about the exercise of revisional power by the State Government as provided under the U.P. Rules of 1999. The Resolution dated 10.7.2001 passed by the corporation reads as under:

"Additional Agenda No.1

In respect of incorporating the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 in the Corporation Service Rules, 1984

"Proposal is passed taking a decision that the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 notified by the Special Secretary, Labour Department - I

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 234

IMPORTANT POINTRevisional power as vested in State Government under Rule 13 of U.P. Rules of 1999 shall be not be available to State Government in respect of employees of Corporation even where Corporation had adopted the rules by resolution.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Revisional power as vested in State Government under Rule 13 of U.P. Rules of 1999 shall be not be available to State Government in respect of employees of Corporation even where Corporation had adopted the rules by resolution.