SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(SC) 1204

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(BEFORE B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND SUHAS C. SEN, JJ.)
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Versus
PRABHAT CHANDRA MALLICK.
Civil Appeal No. 8483 of 1994 {From the Judgment and Order dated 3-8-1983 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna in T.A. No. 13 of 1991}
Decided on 30-11-1994
Advocates appeared:
Dr Anand Prakash, Senior Advocate (Y.P. Mahajan, Arvind Kumar Sharma, S.N. Terdal, Advocates, with him) for the Appellant; N.R. Choudhary and Som Nath Mukherjee, Advocates, for the Respondent.

Advocates:
ANAND PARKASH, ARVIND SHARMA, N.R.CHAUDHARY, S.N.TERDAL, SOM NATH MUKHERJI, Y.P.MAHAJAN

Headnote:

Constitution of India - Article 311(1) - Dismissed From Service - Dismissal Passed Was Invalid - Respondent, was dismissed from service by an order by Welfare Commissioner, Coal Mines Welfare Organisation (5th respondent ) Respondent challenged said order by way of an original application before Central Administrative Tribunal - Main ground urged by him was that order of dismissal passed by 5th respondent was invalid - Case of appellants is that 5th respondent having been declared Head of Department he exercises all powers of 3rd respondent, and, hence, he was competent to pass order dismissing respondent – Held, Order makes it clear that post of Coal Mines Welfare Commissioner was vacant and therefore 5th respondent was declared to be Head of the Department so that work of organisation should not suffer - Idea, as explained evidently was that work of Organisation should not suffer for lack of regular appointment of Head of Organisation - To say that notwithstanding said declaration and notwithstanding fact that he exercises power of said office, fifth respondent does not yet hold that office, amounts, in our opinion, to indulging in sophistry - Said decision is of no help to respondent inasmuch as it merely says that whether or not an authority is subordinate in rank to another for purposes of Article 311(1) of Constitution of India, has to be determined with reference to state of affairs existing on date of appointment - Respondent was appointed by Coal Mines Welfare Commissioner and he is dismissed by very same officer – Appeal Allowed.

JUDGMENT

B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.— Leave granted. Heard counsel for both the parties.

2. Pursuant to the disciplinary enquiry held against the respondent, he was dismissed from service by an order dated 12-1-1982 by the Welfare Commissioner (Special Grade), Coal Mines Welfare Organisation, Dhanbad (5th respondent in the original application and hereinafter referred to as such for the sake of convenience). The respondent challenged the said order by way of an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna. The main ground urged by him was that the order of dismissal passed by the 5th respondent was invalid inasmuch as he was subordinate to the "Coal Mines Welfare Commissioner of Coal Mines Welfare Organisation, Dhanbad" who appointed him. The Tribunal upheld the said contention, negativing the plea put forward by the appellants, who were respondents in the original application, that the 5th respondent was vested with all the powers of the 3rd respondent. The correctness of the said order is questioned herein.

3. The order dismissing the respondent is issued by the "Welfare Commissioner (Special Grade), Coal Mines Welfare Commissioner, Head of the Department, Coal Mines Labour Welfare Organisation (appointing authority)". The case of the appellants is that the 5th respondent having been declared Head of the Department under Supplementary Rule 2(10), he exercises all the powers of the 3rd respondent, and, hence, he was competent to pass the order dismissing the respondent. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the appellants has placed before us a copy of the order dated 7-2-1980 whereunder the President has declared the 5th respondent as Head of the Department of the Organisation. The order reads as follows:

"No. A.38011/l/80-Adm.

New Delhi,

the 7th Feb., 1980

To,

The Coal Mines Welfare Commissioner,

Dhanbad.

Sub.: Delegation of power to Welfare Commissioner (Special Grade), Coal Mines Welfare Organisation, Dhanbad.

Sir,

I am directed to say that the President is pleased to declare the Welfare Commissioner (Special Grade), Coal Mines Welfare Organisation, Dhanbad as Head of Department of that Organisation under Supplementary Rule 2(10) and for the purposes of Delegation of Financial Power Rules, 1958 with immediate effect and till such time as incumbent is appointed to the post of Coal Mines Welfare Commissioner, Dhanbad.

2. Pending appointment of an incumbent of the post of Coal Mines Welfare Commissioner, Dhanbad, Welfare Commissioner (Special Grade) is also declared as his own controlling officer as well as controlling officer in respect of all the Group A officers of the Coal Mines Welfare Organisation for the purposes of Travelling Allowance under S.R. 191.

3. This issue in exercise of the delegated power in consultation with the Integrated Finance vide their U.O. No. 275/Fin./80 dated 7-2-1980.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

(A.S. Deshpande)

Under Secretary to the Govt. of India."

4. The above order expressly declares the 5th respondent as the Head of the Department of the Organisation under Supplementary Rule 2(10). It also declares him the Head of the Department for the purposes of Delegation of Financial Powers Rules, 1958. The said arrangement was made till such time as an incumbent was appointed to the post of Coal Mines Welfare Commissioner, Dhanbad.

Supplementary Rule 2(10) reads as follows:

"Head of department means any authority which the President may by order declare to be the head of a department for the purposes of these rules."

5. The Government of India has declared that the authority declared to be the Head of Department under the Supplementary Rules shall also be considered to be the Head of Department for the purposes of Fundamental Rules. (Vide IMFUO No. 5050-E-IV/46 dated 18-9-1946 to the Auditor General of India)

6. The order dated 7-2-1980 read with Supplementary Rule 2(10) and the Government of Indias decision aforementioned clearly discloses that the 5th respondent was declared by the Pr






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top