Judgment

B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.

(1) LEAVE granted. Heard counsel for the parties.

(2) THESE appeals are preferred against the judgment of the division bench of the Madras High court disposing of writ appeals, preferred by the respondents, with certain directions.

(3) THE respondents, R. Rajan and C.A. Rajan, are the secretary and President respectively of the Association of Assistant Engineers in the service of the Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (the Board). Disciplinary action has been initiated against them under the Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1978 (Regulations). After the receipt of the Enquiry Officers report, the General Manager of the Board issued notices to the respondents calling upon them to submit their defence, if any, within seven days of the receipt of the said notices. A copy of the Enquiry Officers report along with depositions of witnesses was enclosed with the said notices. At that stage, the respondents approached the Madras High court by way of writ petitions contending that the Board is bent upon dismissing them from service, that they were being victimised for union activities and that the General Manager who has issued the aforesaid notices has no jurisdiction to impose the punishment of dismissal. They also raised several grounds with respect to the regularity and validity of the manner in which the enquiry against them was conducted. The appellants (respondents in the writ petitions) opposed the writ petitions inter alia on the ground that the High court ought not have interfered at that stage of disciplinary proceedings. They denied the charges of victimisation or unfair labour practice levelled by the respondents. They also denied that the Board had already made up its mind to dismiss the respondents. While affirming the power of the General Manager to impose the penalty of dismissal upon the respondents, the learned counsel for the Board appears to have stated before the learned Single Judge that the Board does not propose to impose the punishment of dismissal on the respondents (writ petitioners) even if the charges against them are established - vide para 29 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

(4) THE learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that no interference is called for at that stage of the disciplinary proceedings but observed at the same time that "even if the charges are held proved against the petitioners, the punishment of dismissal from service shall not be imposed on the petitioners in the light of the statement made on behalf of the respondents". (In the above extract, the expression petitioners means the writ petitions who are respondents in these appeals and the expression respondents means the appellants herein.)

(5) THE respondents filed two writ appeals against the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The division bench was also of the opinion that at the present stage of disciplinary proceedings, no interference is warranted by the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The bench observed that "this is not the stage at which the court can issue a direction as to what punishment should be imposed and what not". But then, it noted, "however, in the light of the assertion on the part of the Managing Director that he has powers to impose a penalty of compulsory retirement, it becomes necessary to indicate what are his powers relating to the officers having revised pay scales of Rs. 2000-760-2300-75-3200-100-3500." The bench examined the relevant regulations, the old and the revised pay scales and concluded that the Managing Director is not competent to impose the penalty of dismissal or compulsory retirement upon the respondents. The Division Bench held:

"THE Managing Director is not the competent authority to impose penalties mentioned in (f), (g) and (h), viz., withholding of promotion, comp