Back
High Court Of Delhi
S.D.SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
TRADE FAIR AUTHORITY OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil 2092 of 1981
Decided On : 11/19/1984
TRADE FAIR AUTHORITY OF INDIA - REMOVAL OF EMPLOYEE - WRIT PETITION - JURISDICTION - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - FAIR HEARING - CROSS-EXAMINATION - REINSTATEMENT - BACK WAGES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of the Trade Fair Authority of India (TFAI), was removed from service following an enquiry into charges of misconduct. The petitioner challenged the removal order on the grounds of denial of natural justice, absence of reasonable opportunity, non-compliance with the Conduct Rules, and lack of evidence to support the charges.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Trade Fair Authority of India is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and is therefore amenable to the jurisdiction of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The employees of the Trade Fair Authority of India are in public employment and are entitled to the principles of natural justice, including fair hearing and the right to cross-examine witnesses, before any adverse action is taken against them. 3. The charges against the petitioner were not proved on the basis of the evidence presented during the enquiry. 4. The petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and allowances, with other consequential benefits, as his removal from service was illegal.
Issues: 1. Whether the Trade Fair Authority of India is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. 2. Whether the employees of the Trade Fair Authority of India are in public employment and entitled to the principles of natural justice. 3. Whether the charges against the petitioner were proved on the basis of the evidence presented during the enquiry. 4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and allowances.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Trade Fair Authority of India is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution because it is an instrumentality or agency of the government, as evidenced by the fact that the entire share capital is furnished by the Union of India, the subscribers to the Memorandum of the company are government officers, and the financial assistance given to the respondent in the nature of Pragati Maidan complex would itself show how pervasive is the interest of the government and control as to make an argument that it is not a state almost a non-starter. 2. The employees of the Trade Fair Authority of India are in public employment because the Trade Fair Authority of India is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. 3. The charges against the petitioner were not proved on the basis of the evidence presented during the enquiry because the findings that the charges have been proved against the petitioner are based on no evidence or material and are on this ground liable to be quashed. 4. The petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and allowances, with other consequential benefits, as his removal from service was illegal because in the matter of public employment if the termination is held to be bad, in view of the latest decisions in cases a declaration can be granted that the man continues to be in service.
Final Decision: The petition is allowed with costs. The impugned order of termination of service of the petitioner is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated with full back wages and allowances with other consequential benefits. Counsel's fee Rs. 500.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition was beard together with others and they will be disposed of by this coammon judgment as the counsel agreed that the decision in this. writ petition will govern the dscision in other petitions.
( 2 ) THIS writ petition challenges the order of removal of 7-4-1981 as up-held in appeal by the order of the Managing Director of respondent No. 1 Trade Fair Authority as per his order dated 15-7-1981 by which the petitioner has been removed from service. The charge sheet was served on the "petitioner on 17-2-1981 proposing to hold an enquiry against him under Rules 27 and 28 of the Trade Fairauthority of India Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter to be known as conduct Rules ). The charge reads as under ;
THAT a demonstration was held on 3rd February, 1981 by some of the Employecs of the Trade Fair Authority of India in office premises in which inflammatory speeches were made and defamatory slogans were shouted. Chairman and some other officer of the TFAI were criticised. Shri S. D. Sharma was one of the speakers. A news item appeared to this effect in the Patriot dated the 4th February, 1981. Shri S. D. Sharma s action comes under the definition of mis-conduct as defied in the trade Fair Authority of India Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules. This relates to Rule 5 (6) regarding wilful insubordination and Rule 5 (21) regareding meetings, demonstrations, slogans shoutings etc. within the premises of the Authority without permission of the Competent Authority etc. Chairman and "rule 5 (20) Commission of any act subversive of discipline or of good behaviour,
SHRI S. D. Sharma has, therefore, violated Pule 5 (6), 5 (20) and 5 (21) of TFAI Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules.
THEREAFTER an enquiry was held and the order of removal was passed by the General Manager vide his order of 7-4-1981 and his appeal failed. The petitioner being aggrieved has come to this court.
( 3 ) LATHE fore-front the first objection raised by Mr. Punjwani the learned counsel for the respondent is that no writ petition lies because according to him Trade Fair Authority is not a State within the meaning of article l2 of the Constitution we cannot agree. It was in pursuance of a decision of the Government of India that trade Fair Authority has been registered as a company under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 on 30-12-1976 and started functioning from 1-3-1977. The company was established by amalgamating the functions of two government organisations, namely India international Trade Fair Organisation and Directorate of Exhibitions and Commercial publicity of the Ministry of Commerce and the Indian-Council of Trade Fairs and Exhibitions, Bombay. This was done writh view to unify policy directions, control in the field of publicty and was to replace and take over the functions and activities of the above said three organisations. Pragati Maidan Complex at New Delhi which is owned by the Central Government with all its assets and fittings, equipment, furniture etc. were leased out to the respodent Trade Fair Authority at a nominal rent of Re. 1 per annum. The company was formed with four share-holders i. e. 1. The President of India, 2. Mohd. Yunus, 3. C. Venkataraman Joint s Secretary Ministry Commerce and. 4. B. Ramadorai. Chief Executive- Director, Fair Organisation, Ministry of Commerce, New Delhi. The share Capital of the company is Rs. 50 lakhs divided into 50,000 equity shares of Rs, 100 each. The President through the Secretary (Foreign Trade) Ministry of Commerce, New Delhi, holds 24997-shares and the other three directors hold one share each. The objects for which the company was established include the publicity in India abroad International Trade Fairs and Exhibitions to be held in lndia and invite the foreign participants to participate in them. Among either objects the memorandum provides that respondent authority will undertake at the instance of the
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
