http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DR. R.K. DIWAKAR & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       13/08/1997

BENCH: K. VENKATASWAMI, V.N. KHARE.

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                 THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1997 Present:                 Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.Venkataswami                 Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.N.Khare G.M.Mishra and Rathin Das, Advs. for the appellants A.P.Mohanty, Adv. for the Respondents                      J U D G M E N T S      The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:                 (With C.A. No. 5851 of 1994)                       J U D G M E N T K. Venkataswami, J.      A common  question of  law  arises  out  of  these  two appeals.   As a  matter of  fact, the High Court disposed of the two Miscellaneous Petitions by one order.      The  appellant   framed  charges   against  the   first respondent in  each  of  the  appeals  for  certain  alleged misconduct committed by them.  The charge-sheets were issued by the  Director.    Medical  and  Health  Services  of  the appellant.   The delinquents challenged the charge-sheets on the only ground that their appointing authority/disciplinary authority being  the Managing Director of the appellant, the charge memo  issued by  the  Director,  Medical  and  Health Services was  invalid and of no consequence.  The appellant, however,  justified   the  issue   of  charge-sheet  by  the Director.   Medical & Health Services on the ground that the powers to initiate disciplinary action had been delegated to the Head  of the  Department who  enjoys a  rank of  General Manager.   The Director,  Medical and  Health Services,  who issued the  charge memos, admittedly come under the category of controlling authority.      The High  court did  not accept  the contention  of the appellant (respondent  before the  High Court)  stating that the delegation of power has not been established.      Before  us,  the  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the appellants, apart  from bringing  to our notice the relevant proceedings duly  delegating  the  power  to  the  Director, Medical and  Health Services,  invited our  attention  to  a recent decision  of this  Court in Director General. ESI vs. T.Abdul Razak  (1996  (4)  SCC  708).    In  that  case,  in answering an identical question, this Court held a follows:-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    "With  regard   to  initiation   of      disciplinary  proceedings   by  the      Regional Director, we find that the      legal position is well settled that      it  is   not  necessary   that  the      authority competent  to impose  the      penalty    must     initiate    the      disciplinary proceedings  and  that      the proceedings can be initiated by      any superior  authority who  can be      held   to    be   the   controlling      authority who  may  be  an  officer      subordinate   to   the   appointing      authority (See:  State of  m.P.  v.      Shardul   Singh;   P.V.   Srinivasa      Sastry  v.   Controller  &  Auditor      General and  Inspector  General  of      Police  v.  General  and  Inspector      General of Police v. Thavasiappan).      The Regional  Director,  being  the      officer-in-charge  of  the  region,      was the  controlling  authority  in      respect of  the  respondents.    He      could  institute  the  disciplinary      proceedings against the respondents      even in  the  absence  of  specific      conferment  of   a  power  in  that      regard."           (Emphasis supplied)      In the  case on  hand, it  is not  in dispute  that the authority who  issued the  charge-sheet was  the controlling authority.   That being  the position,  the judgment  of the High Court  cannot be  sustained and  accordingly it  is set aside and the appeals are allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.