MAHARASHTRA STATE MINING CORPORATION Vs. SUNIL
LAWS(SC)-2006-4-39
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on
April 24,2006
MAHARASHTRA STATE MINING CORPORATION
Appellant
VERSUS
SUNIL
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
KRISHNA KUMAR VS. DIVISIONAL ASSISTANT ELECTRICAL ENGINEER [DISTINGUISHED]HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASHTAN VS. P P SINGH [REFERRED TO]
CLAUDE LILA PARULEKAR VS. SAKAL PAPERS P LTD [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA VS. CHAIRMAN VIDUR GRAMIN BANK BIJNORE [LAWS(ALL)-2009-3-33] [REFERRED TO]CHIMANLAL K PATEL VS. DENA BANK [LAWS(GJH)-2012-12-104] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP KUMAR VS. CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2024-3-139] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR MITTAL VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2020-10-41] [REFERRED TO]
BISWASRI MUKHERJEE VS. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK [LAWS(DLH)-2021-2-139] [REFERRED TO]
PAN RESORTS LTD VS. H H KARTHIKA THIRUNAL LAKSHMI BAYI [LAWS(MAD)-2012-10-190] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND ORS. VS. PANNALAL CHOUDHURY AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-7-15] [REFERRED TO]
GANPAT R PALNI VS. STATE OF GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2009-12-71] [REFERRED TO [ 8 ]]
VISNAGAR TALUKA CO-OPERATIVE PURCHASE AND SELLS UNION LTD. VS. PRATIK UPADHYAY, DISTRICT REGISTRAR [LAWS(GJH)-2020-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING COMMITTEE VS. NEERA CHOPRA [LAWS(DLH)-2013-4-162] [REFERRED TO]
K.P.GUPTA VS. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2013-11-220] [REFERRED TO]
S.S.P. YADAV AND ORS. VS. GOVERNMENT OF A.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(CA)-2010-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT KUMAR SINHA VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. [LAWS(JHAR)-2015-12-110] [REFERRED TO]
Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority VS. Sanderson Industries Limited [LAWS(JHAR)-2012-7-334] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. S S P YADAV [LAWS(APH)-2010-11-21] [REFERRED TO]
KARNATAKA FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED VS. R KRISHNA MURTHY, S/O LATE P S RAMANUJAM [LAWS(KAR)-2013-7-418] [REFERRED]
S M ADIGA VS. SYNDICATE BANK REP BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (P) [LAWS(KAR)-2018-7-48] [REFERRED TO]
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY VS. SANGAMESH PATIL A. [LAWS(KAR)-2022-3-146] [REFERRED TO]
DIPAK KUMAR LAHIRI VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-2010-5-100] [REFERRED TO]
KIRLOSKAR BROTHERS LIMITED VS. CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2010-10-252] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. GUNWANTBA MULARAJSINH JADEJA [LAWS(GJH)-2009-5-117] [REFERRED TO]
HARAKCHAND MISIRIMAL VS. COLLECTOR OFFICE [LAWS(BOM)-2008-10-157] [REFERRED TO]
P H PAUL MANOJ PANDIAN VS. P VELDURAI [LAWS(MAD)-2008-12-101] [REFERRED TO]
S. RASALAM VS. COMMISSIONER [LAWS(MAD)-2014-8-81] [REFERRED TO]
K SHIVARAM SHETTY VS. STATE [LAWS(KAR)-2008-2-48] [REFERRED TO]
Syndicate Bank A Body Constituted Under The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Undertakings) Act, 1970 rep. by Sri. B. Pramod General Manager (Personnel) Syndicate Bank Industrial Relation Division VS. Sri B. Ganesh Pai S/o Late Sri Sridhar Pai@ [LAWS(KAR)-2010-12-78] [REFERRED TO]
SATHYAN NARAVOOR SOUPARNIKA, NARAVOOR, KOOTHUPARAMBU, KANNUR DISTRICT VS. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES, NEW DELHI [LAWS(KER)-2017-2-88] [REFERRED TO]
SARASWATI PAPER BOARD MILLS VS. HARYANA FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-4-151] [REFERRED TO]
P.S.K. SINGARAVELU VS. THE SECRETARY, TAMIL NADU LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI [LAWS(MAD)-2016-12-75] [REFERRED TO]
MUNEERA, T.P. VS. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS [LAWS(KER)-2017-8-58] [REFERRED TO]
ZILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT, DURG (C.G.) VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS [LAWS(CHH)-2018-1-66] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS VICE CHAIRMAN VS. MRS. JOGINDER KAUR W/O SARDAR SOHAN SINGH, [LAWS(DLH)-2009-5-380] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY SOLVEX LTD VS. BABU LAL DATA [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-4-85] [REFERRED TO]
K.S. Aithal S/o Late K. Ananthayya Aithal, Joint Director Karnataka Land Army Corporation VS. Karnataka Land Army Corporation Ltd. and others [LAWS(KAR)-2011-3-148] [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDRA KUMAR JAIN VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-5-324] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING COMMITTEE NAVAL PUBLIC SCHOOL VS. NEERA CHOPRA [LAWS(DLH)-2012-5-233] [REFERRED TO]
SUNITA CHANDRA (NOW S/S) VS. U O I THRU SECY MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT & [LAWS(ALL)-2019-4-90] [REFERRED TO]
PRAVIN BALISINGH RAGHUWANSHI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2010-8-148] [REFERRED TO]
SANDIP KUMAR BAJAJ VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2020-9-15] [REFERRED TO]
GOA SHIPYARD LTD VS. BABU THOMAS [LAWS(SC)-2007-5-165] [RELIED ON]
KULWANT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2018-2-116] [REFERRED TO]
BASHIR AHMED KHAN VS. STATE OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2008-5-34] [REFERRED TO]
K.CHAKRAVARTHI VS. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION [LAWS(MAD)-2022-4-198] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA PRATAP SINGH VS. M/S. RMD PUBLISHERS PVT. LTD. [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-4-304] [REFERRED TO]
MANVINDER SINGH BHATIA VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2015-12-114] [REFERRED TO]
PRASHANT KUMAR JAISWAL AND 12 OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. AND 10 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-10-109] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER JAMNAGAR, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. R.M. DOSHI [LAWS(GJH)-2011-11-117] [REFERRED TO]
HADIBANDHU PANIGRAHI VS. ORISSA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2016-2-35] [REFERRED TO]
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY CATERING CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION (REGD. ) VS. UNION OF INDIA, THE MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS [LAWS(KAR)-2024-2-103] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR SAHU VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2006-8-87] [REFERRED TO]
K K SHUKLA VS. BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR AND [LAWS(ALL)-2017-8-133] [REFERRED TO]
SAMARTH SHIKSHA SAMITI REGD VS. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION [LAWS(DLH)-2011-4-61] [REFERRED TO]
V RAMA RAO VS. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CBI [LAWS(KAR)-2014-4-346] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The respondent was employed by the appellant. On the basis that the respondent had indulged in various activities of misconduct, he was placed under suspension pending disciplinary enquiry. The respondent was served with a charge-sheet which was issued by the Managing Director of the appellant. An Enquiry Officer was appointed. After holding the enquiry, a report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer. According to the report, of the eight charges, four were proved, one partly proved and three not proved. The Managing Director concurred with the Enquiry Officer's findings and issued a show cause notice to the appellant why the punishment of dismissal of service should not be imposed upon him. No reply appears to have been given to this notice and the respondent was dismissed from service on 25th January, 1991. The order of dismissal was also passed by the Managing Director. Challenging the order of dismissal, the respondent filed a writ petition before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. While the writ petition was pending, the Board of Directors of the appellant Corporation passed a resolution ratifying the action taken by the Managing Director in respect of the disciplinary action against the respondent and also empowering the Managing Director to take decisions in respect of the officers and staff in the grade of pay the maximum of which did not exceed Rs. 4, 700/-p.m. Prior to this resolution the Managing Director had powers only in respect of those posts where the maximum pay did not exceed Rs. 1, 800/- p.m. Admittedly, the respondent at the relevant time was drawing more than Rs. 1, 800/- p.m. Therefore when the Managing Director issued the order dismissing the respondent, he was incompetent to do so.
(3.)In the writ petition the respondent had taken several grounds for challenging the dismissal order for example, that the relevant documents were not supplied, that he was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses, that he was not allowed to engage a lawyer etc. However, a perusal of paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment of the High Court shows that the writ petitioner did not press any of the grounds. The only ground which was pressed was that the order of dismissal was passed by the Managing Director of the appellant, who had no authority or power to do so, as the same was vested in the Board of Directors of the appellant. In view of the fact that the respondent had not pressed these grounds before the High Court, we cannot allow him to urge these points before us. The only issue which the High Court was called upon to decide was whether the removal of the respondent from service was by a competent authority. The High Court allowed the writ petition holding that the Managing Director was not competent to terminate the respondent's services as on the date of the passing of the order of termination and therefore the order of dismissal was invalid. The High Court was also of the view that this defect could not be rectified subsequently by the resolution of the Board of Directors. The High Court accordingly set aside the order of termination. Since the respondent had already retired from service, the appellant was directed to reinstate the respondent notionally with effect from the date of termination in the same post and pay salaries up to the date of superannuation and to pay all retrial benefits after the date of superannuation.
(2.)The respondent was employed by the appellant. On the basis that the respondent had indulged in various activities of misconduct, he was placed under suspension pending disciplinary enquiry. The respondent was served with a charge-sheet which was issued by the Managing Director of the appellant. An Enquiry Officer was appointed. After holding the enquiry, a report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer. According to the report, of the eight charges, four were proved, one partly proved and three not proved. The Managing Director concurred with the Enquiry Officer's findings and issued a show cause notice to the appellant why the punishment of dismissal of service should not be imposed upon him. No reply appears to have been given to this notice and the respondent was dismissed from service on 25th January, 1991. The order of dismissal was also passed by the Managing Director. Challenging the order of dismissal, the respondent filed a writ petition before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. While the writ petition was pending, the Board of Directors of the appellant Corporation passed a resolution ratifying the action taken by the Managing Director in respect of the disciplinary action against the respondent and also empowering the Managing Director to take decisions in respect of the officers and staff in the grade of pay the maximum of which did not exceed Rs. 4, 700/-p.m. Prior to this resolution the Managing Director had powers only in respect of those posts where the maximum pay did not exceed Rs. 1, 800/- p.m. Admittedly, the respondent at the relevant time was drawing more than Rs. 1, 800/- p.m. Therefore when the Managing Director issued the order dismissing the respondent, he was incompetent to do so.
(3.)In the writ petition the respondent had taken several grounds for challenging the dismissal order for example, that the relevant documents were not supplied, that he was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses, that he was not allowed to engage a lawyer etc. However, a perusal of paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment of the High Court shows that the writ petitioner did not press any of the grounds. The only ground which was pressed was that the order of dismissal was passed by the Managing Director of the appellant, who had no authority or power to do so, as the same was vested in the Board of Directors of the appellant. In view of the fact that the respondent had not pressed these grounds before the High Court, we cannot allow him to urge these points before us. The only issue which the High Court was called upon to decide was whether the removal of the respondent from service was by a competent authority. The High Court allowed the writ petition holding that the Managing Director was not competent to terminate the respondent's services as on the date of the passing of the order of termination and therefore the order of dismissal was invalid. The High Court was also of the view that this defect could not be rectified subsequently by the resolution of the Board of Directors. The High Court accordingly set aside the order of termination. Since the respondent had already retired from service, the appellant was directed to reinstate the respondent notionally with effect from the date of termination in the same post and pay salaries up to the date of superannuation and to pay all retrial benefits after the date of superannuation.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.