JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the respondent herein in his proceeding G.D.C.No.E4/8210/2008 dated 18.09.2017 of the respondent and to quash the same and to issue direction to the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.

1. The present Writ Petition is heard on 23.12.2021.

2. Through the impugned order dated 18.09.2017, the petitioner, who was employed as a Junior Engineer under the Chennai Corporation was dismissed from services on the basis of the inquiry report received from the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (TDP) in TDP Case No.19 of 2012, by the Deputy Commissioner of Greater Chennai Corporation, who is the respondent herein. The order of dismissal is challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, predominantly on three grounds.

2.1 Firstly, the Authority Competent to impose a penalty in respect of the officers of the Municipal Corporation would be the Commissioner under Rule 10(c) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955 [hereinafter referred to as “DPT Rules”] and such powers cannot be delegated to subordinate officers.

2.2 Secondly, no reasons have been assigned in the impugned order of dismissal and hence, is deemed to be a non speaking order and therefore cannot be sustained.

2.3 Thirdly, the petitioner was earlier subjected to similar charges which came to be dropped at the intervention of the orders of this Court wherein strictures came to be passed against the officials of the Chennai Corporation and therefore the subsequent dismissal order is “malice in law” and amounts to victimization.

2.4 The learned Standing counsel for the respondent would submit that the Deputy Commissioner was empowered to pass orders in view of the Government Order in G.O.(2D) No.54, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department, dated 01.08.2016 on the basis of the report of the Commissioner of Disciplinary Proceedings, pursuant to which the charges came to be framed. By placing reliance on the proceedings of the Commissioner dated 03.03.2016, she would submit that, as per Rule 6 of the Chennai Corporation, Class III & IV Services (Discipline & Appeal) Bye-laws 1983, the Commissioner of Chennai Corporation is the disciplinary authority, who had delegated his powers of awarding punishments specified in the bye-laws to the Deputy Commissioner in his proceedings dated 03.03.2016 and hence the Deputy Commissioner was well within his jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. By drawing attention to the impugned order, the learned counsel submitted that the basis for arriving at the decision was on the records available in the TDP case and therefore, it cannot be termed as a “non speaking order”. Lastly, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the charges against the petitioner are very serious in nature, relating to possession of disproportionate assets and in view of the Government's recommendations to conduct an enquiry before the Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal, the impugned order came to be passed and therefore, this is not a case of victimization.

3. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsels.

4. The object and scope of Latin Maxim “delegatus non potest delegare” has been dealt with time and again by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions and it has been consistently held that sub delegation of powers vested with an authority under a statute is impermissible in law, unless the legislature provides for it. In A.K.Roy & Another Vs. State of Punjab and Others reported in 1986 (4) SCC 326, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had reiterated this ratio in the following manner:

“10. ... Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden