Back
1983 Supreme(Del) 198
High Court Of Delhi
S.C.MEHTA - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Decided On : 07/13/1983
Transferred employees of the Food Corporation of India enjoy statutory protection under Section 12A(5) of the Food Corporation Act, 1964, which prohibits their dismissal or removal by an authority subordinate to that competent to make a similar or equivalent appointment under the Corporation's regulations. Compulsory retirement, if imposed as a measure of punishment, is considered a form of removal and falls within the ambit of this protection.
Headnote:
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA - STAFF REGULATIONS - COMPULSORY RETIREMENT - VALIDITY - SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 12A OF THE FOOD CORPORATION ACT, 1964 - INTERPRETATION - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY - PROTECTION AGAINST DISMISSAL OR REMOVAL - SECOND OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE REPRESENTATION ON PENALTY PROPOSED - VIOLATION - EFFECT ON INQUIRY PROCEEDINGS - REINSTATEMENT - EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE'S ROLE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, S. C. Mehta, was a transferred employee from the Government of India to the Food Corporation of India (FCI). He faced three departmental inquiries for alleged misconduct. In each case, the Managing Director of FCI, acting under Regulation 56 read with Appendix 2 of the Staff Regulations, imposed the major penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner. The petitioner challenged these orders on various grounds, including violation of the provisions of Section 12A(5) of the Food Corporation Act, 1964.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioner, as a transferred employee, enjoyed the statutory protection under Section 12A(5) of the Act. This provision prohibited the dismissal or removal of such employees by an authority subordinate to that competent to make a similar or equivalent appointment under the Corporation's regulations. The Court interpreted this provision to include compulsory retirement as a form of removal if it was inflicted as a measure of punishment.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner, as a transferred employee, was entitled to the protection under Section 12A(5) of the Food Corporation Act, 1964? 2. Whether the order of compulsory retirement constituted a dismissal or removal within the meaning of Section 12A(5) of the Act? 3. Whether the Managing Director was the competent authority to impose the penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner? 4. Whether the petitioner was denied the second opportunity to make a representation on the penalty proposed, as required under Section 12A(5)(b) of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that Section 12A(5) of the Food Corporation Act, 1964, provided statutory protection to transferred employees similar to the protection enjoyed by government employees under Article 311 of the Constitution. 2. The Court interpreted the term "dismissed or removed" in Section 12A(5) to include compulsory retirement if it was imposed as a measure of punishment. The Court reasoned that compulsory retirement, though it did not result in the loss of terminal benefits, was a form of removal from service and carried a stigma. 3. The Court held that the Managing Director was not the competent authority to impose the penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner because, at the time of the petitioner's transfer to the Corporation in 1969, the Executive Committee was the competent authority to make a similar or equivalent appointment to the petitioner's position. 4. The Court held that the petitioner was denied the second opportunity to make a representation on the penalty proposed, as required under Section 12A(5)(b) of the Act. The Court noted that the Managing Director directly imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement without giving the petitioner a chance to respond to the proposed penalty.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the orders of compulsory retirement and directed the Executive Committee of the FCI to consider the matter afresh and provide the petitioner with a second opportunity to make a representation on the penalty proposed.
( 1 ) THIS case concerns the Food Corporation of India (the Corporation ). The Corporation was established by the Food Corporation Act 1864 (the Act ). Section 45 of the Act empowers the Corporation to frame regulations. In exercise of this delegated power the Corporation framed the Staff Regulations in 1971.
( 2 ) THESE corporate bodies exercise functions of a legislative nature delegated to them by legislative bodies. In essence they are subordinate legislative bodies, but in truth, they are what Lord Maugham described in Rowell v. Pratt (1938) A. C. 101 (113) as domestic bodies which the legislature has thought fit in public interest to entrust with important statutory powers. The Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations 1971 have, therefore, the force of a statute, (See Kailash Nath v. State of U. P. , AIR 1957 S. C. 790 (791 ).
( 3 ) S. C. MEHTA, petitioner in this case, joined the service of the Government of India, Ministry of Food, as an Assistant Analyser in 1952. In 1965, after the Corporation was established by the Act of 1964, he came to the Corporation on deputation and continued to work here. In 1975 his services were transferred from the Central Government to the Corporation under Sec. 12a of the Act. A gazette notification dated 18. 3. 1975 was published transferring his services with effect from 1. 3. 1969 from the Government to the Corporation. So from 1. 3. 1969 the petitioner became a transferred employee of the Corporation. On 1. 3. 1969 he was working as Senior Assistant Manager (Quality Control) in the Corporation. On 6. 6. 1971 he was promoted in the Corporation as a Deputy Manager.
( 4 ) 15. 1. 1981 a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner by the Managing Director alleging that he, the petitioner, had written a pseudonymous letter purporting to be in the name of Jagmohan Verma. , President of the Staff Union, making certain allegations against M. N. Kohli, another employee of the Corporation, with an intention to cause an injury and annoyance to him and was guilty of an act unbecoming of a Corporation employee and thus violated Regn. 32 of the Staff Regulations. The Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries was appointed as the inquiry officer. He held an inquiry into the charge. On 3. 9. 1981 he submitted his report. He held that the charge against the petitioner was proved. This was the first inquiry against the petitioner.
( 5 ) SIMULTANEOUSLY with the first inquiry there was a second inquiry against the petitioner. Dharam Das Shastri, a member of the parliament, wrote a letter to the Home Minister requesting him to enquire if any harassment was being caused to the petitioner or if he was being victimized. The Home Minister sent this letter to the Corporation. On this the Managing Director issued another charge-sheet to the petitioner. Here the charge was that the petitioner had sought to bring political pressure on the management of the Corporation and this was a violation of Regn. 50 the of Corporation. The Commissioner of Departmental Inquiry was the inquiry officer. On 4. 8. 1981 he held that the charge against the petitioner was proved.
( 6 ) ON 14. 10. 81 the Managing Director purporting to act under Regn. 56 read with App. 2 imposed the major penalty of compulsory retirement prescribed under Regn. 54 (vii) on the petitioner concurrently on account of each of the above charges made against him. The petitioner appealed to the Chairman of the Corporation as provided under the regulations. The Chairman dismissed the appeal on 4. 3. 1982.
( 7 ) THERE was yet a third inquiry against the petitioner. On 27. 1. 1981 a charge sheet was issued to him alleging that in year 1970-71 he had ordered release of paddy stocks to M/s Mex Timber Traders, Mukarian for shelling over and above the financial arrangements, contrary to the instructions. This was said to be a gross irregularity and a failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty in the performance of duties and th
