1. Disciplinary action against an employee for financial loss via weight manipulation — Challenge to punishment order based on lack of prior concurrence from the Service Board. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 154
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, HEMANT GUPTA, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.
Chairman Administrative Committee U.P. Milk Union & Dairy Federation Centralized Services – Appellant
Versus
Jagpal Singh – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 49 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 298 of 2021) (Diary No. 4183 of 2020)
Decided On : 23-03-2021
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Order of punishment legally passed by competent authority, cannot be interfered with.
Order of punishment legally passed by competent authority, cannot be interfered with.
Subject
Employment - DISCIPLINARY ACTION
Act Referred
SERVICE LAW: .
Headnote
Service Law – Punishment – Reversion to minimum pay scale – Regulation 106 of Service Regulations empowers State Government or Registrar to pass such orders not inconsistent with Regulations in respect of termination, dismissal or removal – Punishment imposed is of reversion and not of either termination, dismissal or removal – Regulation 106 will not be applicable – There is also no inconsistency or difficulty which State Government or Registrar is empowered to remove in exercise of powers conferred under Regulation 106 – Chairman is Disciplinary Authority in terms of proviso to Rule 15 of Dairy Service Rules – Since Chairman of Administrative Committee happens to be Registrar, decision to impose punishment may not require prior approval – However, if prior approval has been sought from office of Registrar, that will not vitiate proceedings – Power exercised by Chairman of Committee in instant case cannot be subject to Regulation 87 – There is nothing wrong in exercise of power by Chairman of Committee in present case – No error in order of punishment passed by Administrative Committee – Orders passed by High Court are not based upon correct appreciation of law and facts – Impugned orders set aside and writ petition dismissed. (Paras 22, 33, 34 and 35)
Facts of the case:
Challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dated 26.8.2019, affirming the order passed by Single Bench on 17.5.2019. Writ petition filed before the High Court was to assail an order of punishment dated 26.10.2018, whereby the respondent was ordered to be reverted to the minimum pay scale and the period of suspension was to be considered as a period spent by employee in service. However, for the said suspension period, employee was not found to be entitled to any other pay or allowance except subsistence allowance and dearness allowance.
Findings of Court:
Milk Commissioner has been appointed as Registrar in exercise of the powers conferred on the State Government by the Act. The approval from the Registrar is in terms of the resolution of the Administrative Committee constituted in terms of Dairy Service Rules. The exercise of the powers under the Act are conferred by designation. The prior approval of the punishment is by Registrar. If, incidentally, the person holding the post of Registrar is also Chairman of the Administrative Committee, it cannot be said to be illegal as he is exercising the powers of Registrar as well as of Chairman of the Administrative Committee in terms of the Act or the Rules.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
administrative law
- service law
- principles of natural justice
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Harish Pandey, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Pankaj Bhagat, AOR
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Harish Pandey, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Pankaj Bhagat, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Whether the punishment order is invalid for failing to obtain prior concurrence under Regulation 87 of the Service Regulations and whether the approving authority was incompetent. (Para 4 , 5 , 16 )
3. Statutory Rules framed under Section 122-A override general regulations; the Chairman of the Administrative Committee is the competent disciplinary authority under Rule 15 of the 1984 Rules. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 32 , 33 )
4. Specific statutory rules framed under a non-obstante clause prevail over general regulations and executive instructions in determining the competent disciplinary authority. (Para 20 , 26 , 28 , 30 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court orders set aside — Punishment order upheld. (Para 35 )
6. Does Regulation 87 of the 1975 Service Regulations apply to employees governed by the 1984 Dairy Service Rules?
No. The 1984 Rules, framed under Section 122-A of the Act, provide a specific statutory regime that overrides the general regulations. Rule 15 of the 1984 Rules determines the disciplinary authority, making Regulation 87 inapplicable to these employees. (Para 18 , 20 , 26 , 28 )
7. Can departmental resolutions or executive instructions displace the authority of statutory rules regarding disciplinary control?
No. Purely departmental executive instructions or resolutions cannot displace statutory rules or import requirements that would be in the teeth of the mandate provided in those statutory rules. (Para 30 )
8. Does an order of punishment become illegal if the Disciplinary Authority and the approving authority are the same person?
Not necessarily. Where a statute empowers a specific official to act and no substitution is possible, the order is valid. Powers conferred by designation can be exercised by the same individual without vitiating the proceedings. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 )
JUDGMENT :
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dated 26.8.2019, affirming the order passed by the learned Single Bench on 17.5.2019.
2. The writ petition filed before the High Court was to assail an order of punishment dated 26.10.2018, whereby the respondent[hereinafter referred to as 'employee'] was ordered to be reverted to the minimum pay scale and the period of suspension was to be considered as a period spent by the employee in service. However, for the said suspension period, the employee was not found to be entitled to any other pay or allowance except subsistence allowance and dearness allowance. The order of punishment was passed after the prior approval of the Commissioner (Dairy Milk), Lucknow, designated as Registrar by the State Government on the same day.
3. The employee was appointed as Executive Trainee in the Centralised Services on 11.8.1984. After completion of the training period, he was appointed as Manager Grade-III. The employee was served with a charge sheet dated 21.4.2015, inter-alia, on the ground that in addition to two chambers of milk in tankers, one more additional third hidden chamber having capacity of 310 liters was created by partition. Water was filled in the said additional chamber to maintain total weight of the vehicle. After weight measurement at the time of unloading of milk from the two chambers, water from the additional hidden chamber was discharged. On account of manipulation in the weight measurement, the Federation suffered financial losses. The employee controverted the said allegations and thus an Inquiry Officer was appointed. In the Inquiry Report dated 13.6.2018, charges nos. 1 and 3 were found to be partially proved against the employee. The Inquiry Report was then forwarded to the employee along with a show cause notice on 25.6.2018. An opportunity of personal hearing was also afforded to him. It is thereafter that the Managing Director/ Chairman (Administrative Committee) passed an order on 26.10.2018 holding the employee guilty of all the three charges and passed an order of punishment, as mentioned above, after obtaining approval from the Commissioner (Dairy Milk)/ Registrar, Dairy Milk Co-operatives, U.P. on 26.10.2018. It is the said order which was challenged by the employee by way of a writ petition before the High Court.
4. The learned Single Bench while deciding the Writ Petition held that the order of punishment was passed without following the due procedure of law, four days prior to the retirement of the employee. There was an undue and unexplained haste in passing the impugned order without taking prior approval under Regulation 87 of the Service Regulations from the competent authority i.e., the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Institutional Service Board. It was further held that the punishment order has been passed by the Chairman of the Administrative Committee and the approval for the punishment has also been granted by the same person. Therefore, the present case was found to be an example of inappropriate approval given by an incompetent authority.
5. In the intra-court appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court referred to the inquiry reports dated 9.5.2014 and 15.10.2014 to hold that the employee has not been given any disagreement note, rather he was exonerated in those reports. However, it is to be noted that the Division Bench overlooked the fact that they were preliminary inquiries. The Division Bench considering the Regulations 87 and 106 of the Service Regulations held as under:
"15. On due consideration of the aforesaid, it is clear that basic requirement is that the order should not be inconsistent to the Regulations of 1975 and the order dated 08.08.2016 is in direct conflict to the provisions as contained under Regulation 87 of the Regulations of 1975. The respondent-petitioner was a member of Centralized Services, which were prom
