- (1.) This appeal by special leave is filed by the Board of Trustees of the Port of Calcutta (for short "board of Trustees") against the judgment of the division bench of the High court of Calcutta dated 5/2/1981 passed in FMA No. 143 of 1981. By the impugned judgment, the division bench affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge holding that the Chairman of the Board of Trustees was not entitled to impose penalty of compulsory retirement on the respondent.
(2.) The respondent was employed as a Land Manager under the Board of Trustees. Departmental proceedings were initiated against HIm for having in possession assets disproportionate to HIs income. It is not necessary for us to go into the details of the enquiry proceedings or the validity of the charge against the respondent. After conclusion of the enquiry proceedings, thechairman of the appellants imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement on the respondent after holding the charge to have been proved. The question that arose in the high court was whether the Chairman could exercise the power under Section 25 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 (for short "the Act") and was a competent person to impose such a penalty when particularly Section 25 did not provide for imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement. The high court held that since Section 25 did not provide for imposition of such a punishment, the order of the Chairman imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement was not legal and further proviso to Section 25 required that before imposing any penalty as mentioned under Section 25, approval of the Central government was to be obtained which had not been done. Section 25 (1 of the Act, we may reproduce as under: "Subject to any regulations made under Section 28, the power of granting extension of service to, granting leave to, suspending, reducing, removing or dismissing or disposing of any other question relating to the services of the employees of a Board, including the power of dispensing with the services of any such employee otherwise than by reason of the misconduct of such employee, shall be exercised- (A) in the case of an employee holding a post referred to in clause (a) of Ss. (1 of Section 24, by the Chairman; (B) in any other case, by the Chairman or by such authority as may be prescribed by regulation: Provided that no such order, so far as the same involves extension of service, suspension, reduction in rank, removal or dismissal of an employee referred to in clause (a) , shall have effect until it is approved by the Central government. "
(3.) The operative portion of Section 25 (1 shows that any action taken thereunder has to be subject to any regulations made under Section 28 of the Act. Section 28 empowers the Board of Trustees of the appellants to make regulations regarding the appointment, promotion, suspension, removal and dismissal of the employees of the Port Trust. Admittedly, no such regulations have been framed under this section.;