DHARAM PAL SINGH Vs. U.P. WAREHOUSING CORPN. AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-1985-3-72
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on March 19,1985

DHARAM PAL SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
U.P. Warehousing Corpn. And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S. Saghir Ahmad, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, who is an employee of the State Warehousing Corporation (for short 'Corporation'), has, by means of this petition, challenged the order dated 30 -11 -84 (Annexure 1) by which he has been placed under suspension. The order has been passed by the Deputy Managing Director. It is contended that the Deputy Managing Director has no power under the U.P. State Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulations made under Section 4 of the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) to place an employee under suspension. Our attention has been invited to the provisions of Regulation 17 which may be quoted below: 17. Procedure About Suspension; (1) An employee may be placed under suspension pending an enquiry against him for breach of discipline or neglect of duty or pending proceedings instituted against him in respect of any Criminal Offence involving moral turpitude. (2) The power to place an employee under suspension shall be exercised; (a) in the case of all employees except the Managing Director, by the Managing Director; and (b) in the case of the Managing Director by the Board of Directors in consultation with the Central Warehousing Corporation and with the previous approval of the State Government. Provided that an employee on deputation from the Central Government, a State Government or a Government Institution shall be suspended only in accordance with the procedure and rules applicable to him in his parent service. With reference to the Regulation quoted above, it is contended that the Managing Director alone has been authorised to place an employee under suspension and not any other authority including Deputy Managing Director.
(2.) IT will be noticed that the Regulations were made on 28th March, 1966. The post of Deputy Managing Director was created by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Corporation adopted on 2 -3 -1970. This resolution apart from creating the post also specifies that the Deputy Managing Director shall have the power to appoint the staff of various categories below the grade of Rs. 200 -400 (Since revised) and to take "disciplinary action". The petitioner admittedly was appointed by the Deputy Managing Director. This appointment was obviously made by the Deputy Managing Director in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by the resolution dated 2 -3 -70 referred to above. It is in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by that resolution that the Deputy Managing Director has placed the petitioner under suspension. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the power of suspension could be exercised only by the Managing Director does not, therefore, hold water inasmuch as the petitioner's appointing authority is the Deputy Managing Director who, as observed earlier, has power to take disciplinary action which, by necessary implication, includes the power to suspend. We also feel that since the petitioner was appointed by the Deputy Managing Director, he cannot legally question the power of the Deputy Managing Director to place him under suspension as the power to appoint and the power to take disciplinary action, which, as observed earlier, includes power to suspend, both flow from the same source, i.e., the Resolution dated 2 -3 -70.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has next contended that the petitioner, in any case, is entitled to full salary even during the period of suspension as the suspension order has not been passed under the Regulation but has been passed by the Deputy Managing Director in exercise of his powers under the Resolution dated 2 -3 -70. Regulation 18 provides as under: - - 18. Grant of subsistence allowance to employees when under suspension: - -An employee when suspended under these Regulations shall not be entitled, during the period of suspension, to draw his full pay but he will be paid during that period, a monthly subsistence allowance at such rate not less than one fourth and not exceeding one half of his substantive pay and so much of the dearness allowance, if any as the authority ordering suspension may determine. (Emphasis supplied).;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.