1991 Supreme(Del) 614

High Court Of Delhi
R.L.KAPUR - Appellant
Versus
MINERALS AND METALS TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED - Respondent
Civil Writ 2085 of 1991
Decided On : 11/18/1991

Headnote:

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ARTICLE 311(2)(B) - MINERALS AND METALS TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED EMPLOYEES CONDUCT, DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL RULES, 1975, RULE 30(II) - DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYEE - ENQUIRY - NATURAL JUSTICE - ARBITRARINESS - VALIDITY OF RULE 30(II) - Held, that the impugned order of dismissal is bad and has to be set aside. Rule 30(II) of the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Limited Employees Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1975, is not ultra vires the Constitution. However, the exercise of power under Rule 30(II) by the respondents is bad and the impugned order has, therefore, to be set aside. The impugned order suffers from the vice of arbitrariness. The silence by the MMTC all this period right from the third week of February 1985 till June 1991 has not been explained at all. Rather it also appears that MMTC did not take action against the petitioner only because it wanted to utilize the favorable deposition of the petitioner which he was to give in the Texas court to its advantage. The petitioner must have deposed in that court at the instance of MMTC and now that very deposition is being used against the petitioner to sustain the charge of misconduct. The MMTC was oppressed by the enormity of the expenses incurred by it in defending the action in the American court and then suffering a decree for one million US dollars, but this certainly cannot by itself be a ground for initiation of any action against the petitioner. The basic charge against the petitioner was that he acted without authority. The petitioner cannot be deprived of his right to have an enquiry against him as per Rules. The case is certainly not covered under clause (ii) of Rule 30 of the Rules. Clause (ii) of Rule 30 grants exemption from holding an enquiry in the manner provided in the Rules. However, the principles of natural justice demand that in such a case a notice should be given to the employee intimating him the proposed penalty and asking for his explanation thereon.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, who at the relevant time was working as Deputy General Manager of the first respondent (the M. M. T. C. ), seeks issue of a writ, order or direction quashing the order of dismissal dated 27 June, 1991 passed by the first respondent against him and then also seeks all consequential benefits. There is a further prayer that rule 30 (ii) of the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Limited Employees Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1975, be declared as ultra vires the Constitution.

Finding of the Court:

The impugned order of dismissal is bad and has to be set aside. Rule 30(II) of the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Limited Employees Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1975, is not ultra vires the Constitution. However, the exercise of power under Rule 30(II) by the respondents is bad and the impugned order has, therefore, to be set aside. The impugned order suffers from the vice of arbitrariness. The silence by the MMTC all this period right from the third week of February 1985 till June 1991 has not been explained at all. Rather it also appears that MMTC did not take action against the petitioner only because it wanted to utilize the favorable deposition of the petitioner which he was to give in the Texas court to its advantage. The petitioner must have deposed in that court at the instance of MMTC and now that very deposition is being used against the petitioner to sustain the charge of misconduct. The MMTC was oppressed by the enormity of the expenses incurred by it in defending the action in the American court and then suffering a decree for one million US dollars, but this certainly cannot by itself be a ground for initiation of any action against the petitioner. The basic charge against the petitioner was that he acted without authority. The petitioner cannot be deprived of his right to have an enquiry against him as per Rules. The case is certainly not covered under clause (ii) of Rule 30 of the Rules. Clause (ii) of Rule 30 grants exemption from holding an enquiry in the manner provided in the Rules. However, the principles of natural justice demand that in such a case a notice should be given to the employee intimating him the proposed penalty and asking for his explanation thereon.

Issues: Whether the impugned order of dismissal is bad and has to be set aside? Whether Rule 30(II) of the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Limited Employees Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1975, is ultra vires the Constitution? Whether the exercise of power under Rule 30(II) by the respondents is bad and the impugned order has, therefore, to be set aside? Whether the impugned order suffers from the vice of arbitrariness? Whether the silence by the MMTC all this period right from the third week of February 1985 till June 1991 has been explained at all? Whether MMTC did not take action against the petitioner only because it wanted to utilize the favorable deposition of the petitioner which he was to give in the Texas court to its advantage? Whether the petitioner must have deposed in that court at the instance of MMTC and now that very deposition is being used against the petitioner to sustain the charge of misconduct? Whether the MMTC was oppressed by the enormity of the expenses incurred by it in defending the action in the American court and then suffering a decree for one million US dollars, but this certainly cannot by itself be a ground for initiation of any action against the petitioner? Whether the basic charge against the petitioner was that he acted without authority? Whether the petitioner cannot be deprived of his right to have an enquiry against him as per Rules? Whether the case is certainly not covered under clause (ii) of Rule 30 of the Rules? Whether Clause (ii) of Rule 30 grants exemption from holding an enquiry in the manner provided in the Rules? Whether the principles of natural justice demand that in such a case a notice should be given to the employee intimating him the proposed penalty and asking for his explanation thereon?

Ratio Decidendi: The impugned order of dismissal is bad and has to be set aside. Rule 30(II) of the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Limited Employees Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1975, is not ultra vires the Constitution. However, the exercise of power under Rule 30(II) by the respondents is bad and the impugned order has, therefore, to be set aside. The impugned order suffers from the vice of arbitrariness. The silence by the MMTC all this period right from the third week of February 1985 till June 1991 has not been explained at all. Rather it also appears that MMTC did not take action against the petitioner only because it wanted to utilize the favorable deposition of the petitioner which he was to give in the Texas court to its advantage. The petitioner must have deposed in that court at the instance of MMTC and now that very deposition is being used against the petitioner to sustain the charge of misconduct. The MMTC was oppressed by the enormity of the expenses incurred by it in defending the action in the American court and then suffering a decree for one million US dollars, but this certainly cannot by itself be a ground for initiation of any action against the petitioner. The basic charge against the petitioner was that he acted without authority. The petitioner cannot be deprived of his right to have an enquiry against him as per Rules. The case is certainly not covered under clause (ii) of Rule 30 of the Rules. Clause (ii) of Rule 30 grants exemption from holding an enquiry in the manner provided in the Rules. However, the principles of natural justice demand that in such a case a notice should be given to the employee intimating him the proposed penalty and asking for his explanation thereon.

Final Decision: The writ petition is allowed. The order of dismissal dated 27 June, 1991 passed by the first respondent against the petitioner is quashed. The consequence will be the petitioner will be entitled to all consequential benefits uptil today. The petitioner will be entitled to costs. Counsel fee Rs. 2,500. 00.