A statutory body cannot proceed with disciplinary proceedings against an employee who ceases to be an employee pending the proceedings, unless authorized by a statute or statutory rules.

1. THIS Rule, issued on an application under Article 226 (1) of the Constitution, arises out of a disciplinary proceeding now pending against the petitioner at the instance of the Damodar Valley Corporation and involves a short and interesting question of law as to whether the statutory body could proceed with a disciplinary proceeding against a person who ceases to be its employee pending the proceedings.

2. THE respondent No. 1, the Damodar valley Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the said Corporation) is a statutory body and a body corporate incorporated under Section 3 of the Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act. Under Section 6 (3) of the said Act, the Corporation appoints officers and servants and Section 7 provides : "the pay and other conditions of service of the officers and servants of the corporation shall. . . . . . (b) as respects the other officers and servants be such as may be determined by regulations. " The said Corporation in exercise of its powers under Section 60 of the said Act had framed statutory regulations with the previous sanction of the Central government governing the recruitment, conditions of service, pay, allowance, discipline, conduct and retiring benefits of the employees of the corporation. Such Regulation is called Damodar Valley Corporation Service Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the said Service Regulations. Chapter 8 of the said Service Regulations provide for the rules regarding conduct and discipline including the procedure to be followed for imposition of any penalty.

The petitioner entered the service of the said Corporation in the year 1951. He was appointed as an Assistant purchase Officer on a contract for a term of three years with effect from March 20, 1951. The relationship between the parties was to be governed primarily by the terms of the agreement. There was no term in the contract providing how the Corporation can take any disciplinary action but Clause 13 of the agreement provided as follows : "in respect of any matter for which provision has not been made in this agreement, the provisions of the relevant rules or regulations of the Corporation shall apply. " By a fresh agreement dated August 28, 1958 service of the petitioner was extended for a further term of two years on a higher pay as Assistant Controller of Purchase but on same terms and conditions as incorporated in the earlier agreement of 1951 subject, however, to the agreement for its extension. It is not disputed that by similar successive agreements petitioner's service under the said Corporation was extended from time to time and gradually on higher scale of pay and on higher ranks. Last of such extension was made in terms of an officer dated March 21, 1964. By the same petitioner's service was extended from March 1, 1964 to December 1, 1966. Such extension was made not only on existing basis, but it was further provided that in all matters concerning the service under the renewal offer the petitioner would be governed by the Damodar Valley corporation Service Regulations and other relevant regulations and orders of the corporation for the time being in force. There is no dispute between the parties that in matters of discipline the parties are to be governed by the provisions of Chapter 8 of the said Service Regulations.

3. ON September 30, 1965 a chargesheet was issued against the petitioner for failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty for certain alleged irregularities in the matter of placing certain orders for supply of spare parts with Messrs. Eastern machinery and Trading Corporation. In this Rule we are not concerned with the merits of the allegation made against the petitioner. The chargesheet itself indicates that the said corporation was proceeding under Chapter of the said Regulations. The petitioner submitted an explanation to the charge-sheet on February 25, 1966. The General Manager of the Corporation by an order d