The Chairman cum Managing Director cannot independently exercise disciplinary powers without the approval of the Board of Directors.

1. - The petitioner who has since retired was appointed by the Board of Directors of the respondent Government of India undertaking as Chief Technical Officer on 30.11.1978. In contemplation of the departmental enquiry, the petitioner was suspended in July 1983 vide Annexure-4 u/R. 10 of the Central Civil Services, (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and the Chairman, Managing Director while exercising powers under sub-rule (1) and (2) of R. 18 of the CCA Rules had ordered the joint enquiry against Shri R.X. Bhalla and Shri J.P. Dhawan and the petitioner V.K. Jain for the reason that there was common charge-sheet against the aforesaid persons. The petitioner was charge-sheeted vide Annexure-6 dated 1.8.1983. One Shri A.K. Rastogi was appointed as enquiry officer. Pending enquiry, the petitioner was reinstated vide Annexure-8 without prejudice to the pendency of the enquiry and without prejudice the period of suspension at the time of conclusion of the enquiry. Ultimately, the petitioner was awarded the punishment vide Annexure-9 dated 18.3.1985 by way of reduction of two stages in the time scale of his pay for the period of two years i.e. he was not to earn increments of pay during the period of two years and on the expiry of two years period, he would earn normal increments of his pay. The period of suspension from 28.7.1983 to 17.9.1984 was to be treated as suspension and only the subsistence allowance as admissible under the rules was to be paid. One J.L. Marwah who was also proceeded jointly was given different punishment and it was decided to withhold the amount of Rs. 50/- p.m. from the monthly pension payable to Marwah for a period of two years and after the expiry of two years Marwah was to be released full pension as stated in Annexure-10.

2. The petitioner challenged the order Annexure-9 by filing an appeal which appeal was dismissed by the Board of Directors on 2.1.1991 (Annexure- 12).

3. Being aggrieved against the orders Annexures-9 & 12 the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on the grounds inter alia; (1) that the impugned order has been passed by the authority which was not competent to pass the same i.e. the appointing authority was the Board of Directors and not the Chairman cum Managing Director and, therefore, order Annexure-9 passed by the Managing Director is without jurisdiction being not legally competent to inflict any of the major penalty as mentioned in the CCA Rules; (2) That the action of the Chairman cum Managing Director to hold joint enquiry is bad in the eyes of law and violation of R. 18 of the CCA Rules and other rules which state that where two or more Government servants are concerned in any case, the President or any other authority competent to impose the penalty of dismissal from service on all such Government servants may make an order directing that disciplinary action against all of them may be taken in a common proceedings and in case the authorities are different, the order for taking disciplinary action in a common proceeding maybe made by the highest of such authorities with the consent of the others. It is the submission that the appointing authority for the petitioner was the Board of Directors and, therefore, the order for initiating the common proceedings could only have been initiated by the Board of Directors and not by Chairman cum Managing Director; (3) that the order of suspension has also been passed by the authority which was not competent to pass the order under the rules as mentioned above so is the case of appointment of enquiry officer.

4. The above order is also being challenged on the ground that in the meetings of the Board of Directors while deciding the appeal, the participation of P. Subramaniam who was working as Salt Commissioner with additional charge of Chairman cum Managing Director had vitiated the appellate order for the reason that as Chairman Cum Managing Director he had passed certain orders against the petitioner and, t