08 July 1996
Supreme Court







DATE OF JUDGMENT:       08/07/1996


CITATION:  1996 SCC  (4) 708        JT 1996 (6)   502  1996 SCALE  (5)113



JUDGMENT:                  THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 1996 Present:           Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.C.Agrawal           Hon’ble Mr.Justice G.T.Nanavati M.Chandrasekharan,     Additional     Solicitor     General, V.J.Francis, P.I.Jose,  Adv and  Amlan Ghose, Advs. with him for the appellants                       J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered: Director General, ESI & Anr. V. T. Abdul Razak             [WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3953 OF 1988,              CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1913 OF 1989 AND            SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.13126-27                 OF 1996 {C.C. NO. 368/1996}]                       J U D G M E N T S.C. AGRAWAL.J. ClVIL APPEALS NOS. 3952/1988, 3953/1988 AND 1913/1989      These appeals  directed against  the  judgment  of  the Central    Administrative    Tribunal,    Bangalore    Bench (hereinafter referred  to as  ’the Tribunal’)  dated January 29, 1988 raise a common question relating to the validity of Rule 16(2)  of  the  Employees’  State  Insurance  (Central) Rules, 1950  (hereinafter referred  to as  ’the Rules’)  and Regulations  12(2)   and  13(1)   of  the  Employees’  State Insurance  Corporation  (Staff  and  Condition  of  Service) Regulations,  1959   (hereinafter  referred   to   as   ’the Regulations’).      The Employees’  State Insurance  Corporation (for short ’the Corporation’)  is a  statutory corporation  established under the  provisions  of  the  Employees’  State  Insurance Corporation Act,  1948  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  ’the Act’). Under  Section 16  of the Act the Director General of the Employees’  State Insurance  Corporation (for short ’the



Director General’)  is the  Chief Executive  Officer of  the Corporation and is one of the Principal Officers, Section 17 of the  Act makes  provisions with regard to staff other the Principal Officers.  In sub-section  (2) of Section 17 it is provided that  the Corporation  shall, with  the approval of the  Central  Government,  make  regulations  regarding  the method  of  recruitment,  pay  and  allowances,  discipline, superannuation benefit  and other  conditions of  service of its members of its staff Section 94-A, wherein provision had been made  for  delegation  of  powers,  provides  that  the Corporation, and  subject to  the regulations  made  by  the corporation in  this  behalf,  the  Standing  Committee  may direct that all or any of the powers and functions which may be exercised  by the  Corporation or the Standing Committee, as the  case may  be, may,  in relation  to such matters and subject to  such Conditions, if any, as may be specified, be also exercisable  by any officer or authority subordinate to the Corporation  Sub-section (1)  of Section  95 of  the Act empowers  the   Central  Government   to  make   rules   not inconsistent with  the Act  for the purpose of giving effect to the  provisions thereof,  Under clause (d) of sub-section (2) of  section 95  such rules may provide for the power and duties of the principal officers and the conditions of their service.  Sub-section   (1)  of   Section  97  empowers  the Corporation to  make regulations  not inconsistent  with the Act and  the rules made thereunder for the administration of affairs of  the Corporation and for carrying into effect the provisions of the Act. Under clause (xxi) of sub-section (2) of Section 97 such regulations may provide for the method of recruitment, pay  and allowances, discipline, superannuation benefits and  other conditions  of service  of officers  and servants  of   the  Corporation  other  than  the  principal officer.      The Rule  have been framed by the Central Government in exercise of  the powers  conferred by Section 95 of the Act. Rule 16  relation to  the powers  and duties of the Director General is as under :-      "Rule 16.  Powers and duties of the      Director  General.-(1)  The  powers      and duties  of the Director General      shall be-           (i)  to   act  as   the  Chief      Executive    officer     of     the      Corporation;           (ii) to co-ordinate, supervise      and control  the work  of the other      Principal Officers;           (iii) to  convene,  under  the      orders of the Chairman, meetings of      the   Corporation,   the   Standing      Committee and  the Medical  Benefit      Council in  accordance with the Act      and the  Rules and to implement the      decisions reached at the meetings;           (iv) to  enter into  contracts      on   behalf   of   Corporation   in      accordance  with  the  Act  or  the      Rules    or     Regulations    made      thereunder,  or   the  general   or      special   instructions    of    the      Corporation   or    the    Standing      Committee;           (v) to furnish all returns and      documents required  by the  Act  or      the Rules to the Central Government



    and to  correspond with the Central      Government    and     the     State      Governments   upon    all   matters      concerning the Corporation;           (vi) to  undertake such  other      duties and  to exercise  such other      powers as  may from time to time be      entrusted or delegated to him.      (2) The  Director Genera  may, with      the  approval   of   the   Standing      Committee, by  General  or  special      order, delegate  any of  his powers      or duties  under the  rules or  the      Regulations or under any resolution      of the  Corporation or the Standing      Committee, as  the case  may be, to      any person  subordinate to him. The      exercise or discharge or any of the      powers or duties so delegated shall      be subjected  to such restrictions,      limitations and conditions, if any,      as the  Director General  may, with      the  approval   of   the   Standing      Committee impose."      The Regulations  have been  made by  the Corporation in exercise of  powers conferred  by sub-section (1) of Section 97 read with clause (xxi) of sub-section (2) and sub-Section (2-A) of  the said Section and sub-section (2) of Section 17 of  the  Act.  The  Regulation  apply  to  every  whole-time employee  of   the  corporation  other  than  the  principal officers  appointed   under  Section  16  of  the  Act.  The Regulations  contain   provisions   regarding   appointment, probation, termination  of service,  pay,  leave,  provident fund, age  of retirement,  pensionary benefits,  control and discipline, suspension,  penalties, etc, Regulation 12 which relates to disciplinary authorities provides as follows:-      "Regulation    12.     Disciplinary      Authorities-   (1)   The   Director      General  may   impose  any  of  the      penalties specified  in  regulation      11 on any employee.      (2)  Without   prejudice   to   the      provisions  of  sub-regulation  (1)      but  to   the  provisions  of  sub-      regulation   (3),    any   of   the      penalties specified  in  regulation      11 may  be imposed  on any employee      by the  appointing authority or the      authority specified  in this behalf      by a  general or  special order  of      the Director General .      (3)    Notwithstanding     anything      contained in  this  regulation,  no      penalty specified in clauses (v) to      (ix)  of  regulation  11  shall  be      imposed    by     any     authority      subordinate   to   the   appointing      authority.      Explanation  -  Where  an  employee      holding a  post of  any  class,  is      promoted, whether  on probation  or      temporarily to the post of the next      higher class,  he shall  be  deemed      for the  purpose of this regulation      to hold  the post  of  such  higher



    class."      Regulation 13  which make  provision for  the authority who can institute disciplinary proceedings reads as under:-      "Regulation   13.    Authority   to      Institute  Proceedings-   (1)   The      Director  General   or  any   other      authority  empowered   by  him   by      general of special order may:      (a)     institute      disciplinary      proceeding against any employee;      (b) direct  disciplinary  authority      to      institute      disciplinary      proceeding against  any employee on      whom that disciplinary authority is      competent  to  impose  under  these      regulations any  of  the  penalties      specified in regulation 11.      (2)   A    disciplinary   authority      competent under  these  regulations      to  impose  any  of  the  penalties      specified   in   clauses   (i)   of      regulation   11    may    institute      disciplinary  proceedings   against      any employee  for the imposition of      any of  the penalties  specified in      clauses (v)  to (ix)  of regulation      11   notwithstanding    that   such      disciplinary   authority   is   not      competent under  these  regulations      to  impose   any  of   the   latter      penalties."      In view of the powers conferred under Regulation 12(2), the Director  Genera made an order dated May 10, 1974 in the following terms:-         "OFFICE ORDER NO 181 OF 1974      In exercise of the powers conferred      by  regulation   No  12(2)  of  the      Employees,     State      Insurance      Corporation (Staff  and  Conditions      of Service)  Regulations, 1959, the      Director General  hereby  delegates      powers to the Officers specified in      Schedule-I    to    impose    minor      penalties specified  in clauses (i)      to (iv) of Regulation 11 in respect      of employees specified in Schedule-      II on  condition  that  the  powers      shall be  exercisable in respect of      the employees  in their  respective      regions/offices.           This office  order  supersedes      all previous  order on  the subject      without  prejudice  to  any  action      taken or  proceedings initiated  in      exercise of the powers conferred by      the said orders.                SCHEDULE-I      1. Regional Directors.      2. Director (Medical), Delhi.      3.     Administrative      Officer,      establishment   branch    (II)   at      Headquarters Officer.               SCHEDULE-II      1. Head  Clerks Assistants/Managers      Grade-III, Personal Assistants.



    2.    Insurance    inspectors/Audit      Inspectors/Manager grade-II"      The said  order was  modified by  order dated  April 9, 1981 which reads as under:-                "Officer Order      In exercise of the powers conferred      by  Regulation  No.  12(2)  of  the      Employees’     State      Insurance      Corporation (Staff  and  Conditions      of Service)  Regulations, 1959, the      undersigned hereby delegates powers      to the  Regional Directors/Director      (Medical)      Delhi/Administrative      Officer-II to  impose  any  of  the      penalties specified  in clauses (i)      to (ix)  of Regulation  11 ibid  on      class  III   (excluding   Insurance      Inspectors/Managers  Grade-II/Audit      Inspectors and personal Assistants)      and class  IV employees,  in  their      respective   regions/offices.    In      cases         of          Insurance      Inspectors/Managers  Grade-II/Audit      Inspectors and Personal Assistants,      the powers already delegated by the      Director General  vide office order      No. 181  of 1974 dated 10.5.1974 to      all  Regional   Directors/Directors      (Medical)      Delhi/Administrative      Officer II  to  impose  only  minor      penalties as  specified in  Clauses      (i) to  (iv) of  Regulation 11 ibid      shall be  exercisable by  them. The      powers delegated  by  the  Director      General vide  office order  No. 181      of   1974        dated    10.5.1974      circulated under No. 166(1)-2/73-EI      will thus  stand  modified  to  the      extent above.           It is circulated that Director      General will  continue  to  be  the      disciplinary authority  in  respect      of  Head  Clerks/Assistants/Manager      Grade III,  whose appointments have      been   made    by   him/or    whose      appointments have  been made before      1.12.1980 i.e.  prior to  the issue      of this office Memorandum No. 7(3)-      1/74 EI  (B)  dated  15.11.1980  to      impose  major  penalties  specified      in   clauses   (v)   to   (ix)   of      Regulation 11 ibid.           This   order    modified   all      previous  orders   on  the  subject      without  prejudice  to  any  action      taken of  proceedings initiated  in      exercise of the powers conferred by      the said orders."      The Standing  Committee had earlier passed a resolution dated may 24,1968 in the following terms:      "Resolved that  notwithstanding any      restrictions imposed  earlier,  the      Director General  may delegate  any      of his  powers under  the Rules, or      the  Regulations   or   under   any



    resolution or  the Corporation  and      the Standing Committee, as the case      may  be,   to  and   the   Standing      committee, as  the case  may be, to      any  officer  subordinate  to  him,      subject  to   such   restrictions,,      limitations and conditions, if any,      as the  Director General may impose      form time to time."      T. Abdul Razak (respondent in Civil Appeals Nos 3952 of 1988 and  3953 of  1988) was  employed as  Insurance manager Gr.II/Inspector   with    the   Corporation,    Disciplinary proceedings were  initiated  against  him  by  the  Regional Director of  Karnataka Region  on the  basis  or  Memorandum dated October  20,  1983.  In  the  Said  proceedings  after holding an  enquiry an  order was  passed  by  the  Director General on  March 6,  1987 imposing the penalty of reduction in rank to post of Head Clerk/manager Gr.III for a period of one  year.   The  said   respondent  filed   an  application (Application No.473  of 1987)  before the Tribunal assailing the said  respondent by  the Regional  Director of Karnataka Region on  the basis of another Memorandum dated January 23, 1985. A  writ Petition  was filed  by the said respondent in the Karnataka High Court challenging the said memorandum and the competence  of the  Regional Director  to  initiate  the disciplinary  proceedings.   The  said   writ  petition  was subsequently transferred  to the Tribunal and was registered as Application No. 1678 of 1986.      P.K. Philip  (respondent in  Civil Appeal  No. 1913  of 1989)  was   employed   as   Manager   Gr.II.   Disciplinary proceedings were  initiated  against  him  by  the  Regional Director on  the basis of Memorandum dated July 18/25, 1986. The said  respondent filed  and application (Application NO. 474 of  1987)  before  the  Tribunal  challenging  the  very initiation of  said proceeding  against him  by the Regional Director.      All the  three petitions,  namely, Application NO. 1678 of 1986  and Application  NO. 473  of 1987 filed by T. Abdul Razak and  Application No  474 of  1987 filed by P.K. Philip have been  disposed of  by  the  Tribunal  by  the  impugned judgment dated  January 29,  1988 whereby  the Tribunal  has struck down  Rule 16(2)  of the  Rules in  its entirety, the words "or  the Authority  specified  in  this  behalf  by  a general or  special order  of  the  Director  General  "  in Regulation 12(2)  and the  words  "or  any  other  authority empowered by  him  by  general  or  special  order  may"  in Regulation 13(1)  of the  Regulations. The resolution of the Standing Committee  of the Corporation dated May 24, 1968 as well as order dated May 10, 1974 and April 9, 1981 passed by the Director  General have  also been  quashed. The Tribunal has also  quashed the  memoranda dated  October 20,    1983, January 21,  1985 and  July 18/25, 1986 regarding initiation of disciplinary  proceedings against both the respondents by the Regional  Director of  Karnataka Region  as well  as the order of  punishment dated  march  6,  1987  passed  by  the Director General against the respondent. T. Abdul Razak.      The Tribunal  has held that there was delegation of the powers of the Corporation to the Director General and it was not permissible  in law  for the Director General to further Delegate the said powers to the Regional Director. In taking the said  view the  Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that the powers  of the  Corporation have  been delegated  to the Director General  under Section  94-A of  the Act  and since Section 94-A  does not make provision for further delegation by the  Director General  of  the  power  so  delegated  the



resolution of  the Standing  committee dated May 24, 1968 as well as  Rule 16(2)  and  Regulations  12(2)  and  13(1)  by empowering the  Director General to specify any other person to exercise  the said  powers permit  sub-delegation by  the delegate  of  the  power  delegated  to  him  which  is  not permissible in  view of  the well  known principle delegatus non potest delegare, The Tribunal has placed reliance on the decision of  Karnataka High  Court in  The  Employees  State Insurance  Corporation,   Bangalore  v.   Shoba   Engineers, Bangalore &  Ors.  ,  1982  (44)  FLR  100.  construing  the provisions of Section 94-A of the Act.      At  the   outset,  it   may  be   stated  that  in  the applications  that   were  filed   by  the  respondents  the challenge was  mainly to  the memoranda  dated  October  20, 1983, January  21,  1985  and  July  18/25,  1986  regarding initiation  of  disciplinary  proceedings  by  the  regional Director and  the order  dated March  6, 1987  passed by the Director General  imposing the  penalty of reduction in rank on respondent, T. Abdul Razak. The order dated March 6, 1987 was passed  by the  Director General  himself  who  was  the disciplinary authority and it is not open to challenge o the ground of  delegation of powers by the Director General, The validity of  the said order was challenged on the basis that the Regional  Director was  not competent  to  initiate  the disciplinary proceedings  in which the order was passed. The Tribunal  was,   therefore,  primarily  concerned  with  the validity of  three memoranda  referred  to  above  regarding initiation  of  disciplinary  proceedings  by  the  Regional Director. In this Context, it may be mentioned that no order of the  Director General   delegating  his powers  regarding initiation  of  disciplinary  proceedings  under  Regulation 13(1) had been placed before the Tribunal. The tow orders of the Director  General dated  May 10,  1974 and July 18, 1981 which were under challenge, had been passed under Regulation 12(2) whereby  the Director  General had delegated the power to (iv) of Regulation 11 in respect of certain categories of employees  specified   therein  on  the  officers  specified therein. Therefore,  in  so  far  as  the  validity  of  the memoranda respondents  is concerned  the question  regarding delegation of  powers by  the Director General did not arise for consideration  and the Tribunal was not required to deal with  the   question  regarding   validity  of  Rule  16(2), Regulations 12(2)  and 13(1), the resolution of the Standing Committee dated  may 24, 1968 and the orders of the Director General dated May 10, 1974 and April 9, 1981. With regard to initiation  of  disciplinary  proceedings  by  the  Regional Director, We  , we  find that  the legal  position  is  well settle that it is not necessary that the authority competent to  impose   the  penalty  must  initiate  the  disciplinary 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  Madhya Pradesh  v. Shardul Singh 1970 (1) SCC 108; P.V. Srinivasa Sastry v. comptroller & Auditor General, 1993 (1) SCC  419; and  Inspector General  of Police  &  Anr.  V. Thavasiappan, 1996  (2) SCC  145].  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, The memoranda dated October 20, 1983, January 21, 1985 and July 1825, 1986 regarding initiation of disciplinary proceedings  against  the  respondents  by  the Regional Director,  therefore, do  not suffer from any legal infirmity and  the applications  filed  by  the  respondents



before the  Tribunal are  liable to  be dismissed. But since the Tribunal has pronounced upon the validity of Rule 16(2), Regulation 12(2)  and 13(1),  the resolution of the Standing Committee dated  may 24,  1968 and orders dated may 10, 1974 and April  9, 1981 passed by the Director General it becomes necessary to examine  the correctness of the decision of the tribunal in that regard.      The law  is well  settle that  in accordance  with  the maxim delegatus  non potest delegare, a statutory power must be exercised only by the body or officer in whom it has been confided, unless  sub-delegation of  the power is authorised by express words or necessary implication, [See : Halsbury,s Law of  England, 4th  Edn, Vol,  1 para  32 p, 34; Craies on Statute Law,  7th Edn  p. 346; The Barium Chemicals Ltd, and Anr v. The company Law Board and Others, 1966 supp. Scr 311, At p.  330,   and Sahni  Silk Mills  (P) Ltd.  and  Anr.  v. Employees’ State insurance Corporation, 1994 (5) SCC 346, at pp. 350-351].      In Sahni Silk Mills (P) Ltd. and Anr, V, The Employees’ State Insurance  Corporation (Supra) this Court has approved the decision  of the  Karnataka High Court in The Employees’ State   insurance Corporation, Bangalore v. Shoba Engineers, Bangalore and Ors. (supra). It has been held that parliament while introducing  Section 94-A in the only conceived direct delegation by  the  corporation  to  different  officers  or authorities subordinate  to the  Corporation and their is no scope for  such delegate  to  sub-delegate  that  power,  by authorizing any  other officer  to exercise  of perform  the powers so  delegated. The  Tribunal has,  therefore, rightly held that Section 94-A does not specifically provide that an officer or  authority subordinate to the corporation to whom the power  has been  delegated by  the corporation an in his turn, Authorise  any other officer to exercise that power or function, But the question that arises is whether Rule 16(2) of  the  Rules  and  Regulations  12(2)  and  13(1)  of  the Regulations relate to exercise of powers or functions of the Corporation or  the  Standing  Committee  delegated  to  the Director  General   by  the   Corporation  or  the  Standing committee under  Section 94-A of the Act. In order to answer this question, it is necessary to make a distinction between a power  conferred on the Director General Under a rule made in exercise of Rule making power under Section 95 or under a regulation made  in   exercise of  power to make regulations under Sections  97(2)(xxi) and  17(2) of the Act and a power or function  or the  Corporation or  the Standing  Committee which is delegated to the Director General under Section 94- A. A  rule or  a regulation  made in  exercise  of  a  power conferred by  a statue  being in  the nature  of subordinate legislation is  statutory in character while a resolution of a  Corporation   or   a   Standing   Committee   is   purely administrative in  nature. Therefore, the power conferred on the Director General  under a rule or a regulation is in the nature  of   a  statutory  power  that  has  been  conferred independently on the Director General. It cannot be regarded as delegation  or powers and functions of the Corporation or the Standing  Committee  under  Section  94-A  of  the  Act, Section 94-A  speaks or ’powers and functions are other than the powers  that are conferred independently on the Director General under the Rules or the Regulations.      On that  view of  the matter Regulations 12 and 13 must be  construed   as  conferring  independent  powers  on  the Director General  and it cannot be said to be the powers and functions of  the Corporation or the Standing Committee that have  been   delegated  to   the  Director  General  by  the Corporation or  the Standing  committee under  Section 94-A.



Regulation 12(2)  which empowers  the  Director  General  to specify by  General or special order the authority which can act as  a disciplinary  authority and Regulation 13(1) which authorises the  Director General  to empower  by general  or special order  any other authority to institute disciplinary proceedings against  an  employee,  cannot  be  regarded  as empowering further  delegation by  the Director  General  of powers delegated  to him.  The Tribunal  was, therefore,  in error in  striking down  the words  "or any  other authority specified in  this behalf  by a  general or special order of the director General " in Regulation 12(2) and the words "or any other  authority empowered  by him by general or special order may"  in Regulation 13(1) on the view that they permit further delegation  by the  Director general  or the  powers delegated to him which is impermissible. The decision of the Tribunal in  this regard  cannot be upheld and the offending words in  Regulations 12(2)  and 13(1)  must be treated as a valid  conferment  of  power  on  the  Director  General  to delegate his  powers under  the said  Regulations. The order dated May  10, 1974  and April  9, 1981  were passed  by the Director General  exercise of  the powers  conferred on  him under Regulation  12(2). By  the said  orders  the  Director General Delegated  the  powers  to  impose  minor  penalties specified in  clause (i) to (iv) of Regulation 11 in respect of  certain   categories  of   employees  and  the  officers specified in  the said  orders. Since  the offending part of Regulation 12(2)  has been found to be valid the said orders dated May  10, 1974  and April  9, 1981 must be held to have been validity issued in exercise of under Regulation 12(2).      Rule 16(2) and the resolution of the Standing Committee dated May  24,  1968  go  together.  Under  Rule  16(2)  the Director General  has been  empowered to delegate any or his powers or duties under the Rules or the Regulations or under any resolution or the Corporation or the Standing Committee, as the  case may  be, any person subordinate to him. For the purpose of  such delegation it is necessary for the Director General to  obtain the  approval or  the Standing committee. Resolution of  the Standing  Committee dated  May  24,  1968 accords such  approval to the Director General. The power of delegation under  Rule 16(2)  can be divided into tow parts; one relating to delegation of the powers or duties under the Rules or  the Regulations  and the  other  relating  to  the powers and duties under any resolution or the Corporation or the Standing  Committee. Insofar  as the  powers  or  duties under the  Rules  or  the  Regulations  are  concerned,  the conferment on the Director General the power to delegate the same is  not violative of the principle of sub-delegation as indicated earlier  because the said powers and duties are in the nature  of independent statutory powers conferred on the Director General  under the  Rules or  the  Regulations.  No infirmity can,  therefore, be  found either in Rule 16(2) or in the  Resolution of  the Standing  Committee dated May 24, 1968 empowering  the Director General to delegate any of his power or  duties under  the Rules  or the  Regulations.  The Position is, however, different in respect of the powers and duties  conferred   on  the   Director  General   under  any resolution or the Corporation or the Standing Committee, The conferment or  such powers  or duties  under a resolution of the Corporation or the Standing Committee could be by way of delegation of  the powers or the Corporation or the Standing Committee under  Section 94-A  of the Act and empowering the Director General  to further  delegate the  said  powers  or duties would  amount  to sub-delegation or a power delegated to him  which is  impermissible in view of the law laid down in Sahni  Silk Mills  (supra). Rule 16(2) and the Resolution



or the  Standing Committee dated may 24, 1968, to the extent they empower  the Director  General to  further delegate the powers or  duties delegated to him by the Corporation or the Standing Committee  under a  resolution referable to Section 94-A, have to be held to be invalid.       For  the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment of the  Tribunal is set aside insofar as it strikes down the words "or  any other authority specified in this behalf by a general  or  special  order  of  the  Director  General"  in Regulation 12(2)  and the  words  "or  any  other  authority empowered by  him  by  general  or  special  order  may"  in Regulation 13(1)  of the  Regulations and quashes the orders dated May  10, 1974 and April 9, 1981 passed by the Director General, the  memoranda dated  October 20, 1983, January 21, 1985 and  July 18/25,  1986 and  the order  dated march  18, 1987. Rule  16(2) and  resolution of the Standing Committee, to the  extent they empower the Director General to delegate the powers  or duties  delegated to him under any resolution of the  Corporation or  the Standing  Committee referable to Section 94-A,  are invalid but the rest of the said Rule and the resolution  are valid.  As a  result,  The  applications filed by  the respondents before the Tribunal are dismissed. The  appeals   are  disposed  of  accordingly.  But  in  the circumstance there is no order as to costs. SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL NO 13126-27 OF 1996 {C.C. NO.368/1996}      Delay condoned.      The petitioner  had moved  the  Central  Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad  Bench  for  Quashing  the  disciplinary proceedings initiated  against him  by the Regional Director and the  order of  compulsory retirement   passed  in  those proceedings  .  The  competence  of  the  Regional  Director initiate the  disciplinary proceedings was challenged by the petitioner by relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of  T. Abdul Razak. The Tribunal has negatived the said contention. Since we have set aside the said decision of the Tribunal in  the case of T. Abdul Razak, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.