08 July 1996
Supreme Court


Bench: AGRAWAL,S.C. (J)
Case number: Appeal Civil 3952 of 1988






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. CIVIL 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 (herein  after 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 than 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 benefits  and other  conditions of service of the members  of its  staff. Section  94-A, wherein provision has 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 of 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, by 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 powers 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 the 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 Rules have been framed by the Central Government in exercise of  the powers  conferred by Section 95 of the Act. Rule 16  relating 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 -           (1)  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    of     regulations    made      thereunder,  or   the  General   or      special    instruction    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 General 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 of 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  Regulations  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 subject  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 of  special order  of      the Director General.      (3)    Notwithstanding     anything      contained in  this  regulation,  no      penalty specified  in clause (v) to      (ix) regulation 11 shall be imposed      by any authority subordinate to the      appointing authority.      Explanation-  Where   an   exployee      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 the such higher



    class."      Regulation 13  which makes  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 or special order may :      (a)     institute      disciplinary      proceeding against any employee;      (b) direct a disciplinary authority      to      institute      disciplinary      proceeding against  any employee on      whom that disciplinary authority is      competent  to  impose  under  these      regulation  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) to (iv) of      regulation   11    may    institute      disciplinary  proceedings   against      any employee  for the imposition of      any 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  General made  and 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 (1)      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 or 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:- <sls>              "Office Order      In exercise  of the power 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   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      (1) to  (iv) of  Regulation 11 ibid      shall be  exercisable by  them. The      powers delegated  by  the  Director      General vide  office order  NO.  16      (1)-2/73/-EI   will    thus   stand      modified to the extent above.           It is circulated that Director      General  will  continue  to  be  in      disciplinary authority  in  respect      of  Head  Clerks/Assistants/Manager      Grade III, whose appointments above      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 panalties 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 or  proceeding  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  power under  the Rules,  or      the  Regulations   or   under   any      resolution of  the Corporation  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  from  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  of  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 the  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   order,  disciplinary  proceedings  were  started against the  said respondent  by the  Regional  Director  of Karnataka Region  on the  basis of  another Memorandum dated January 23,  1985. A  writ petition  was field  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  an application  (Application No. 747 of  1987)  before  the  Tribunal  challenging  the  very initiation of  said proceedings  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  Regulation. The  resolution of the Standing Committee  of the Corporation dated May 24, 1968 as well as  orders dated  May 10, 1974 and April 9, 1981 passed by the Director General have also been quashed. The Tribunal has also  quashed the  memorandum dated  October  20,  1983, January 21,  1985 and  July 18/25, 1986 regarding initiation of disciplinary  proceedings against both the respondents by 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 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 97-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  regulation 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  powers delegated to him which is  not permissible in view of the well know principle delegates non  potest  delegate.  The  Tribunal  has  placed reliance on  the decision of the Karnataka High Court in The Employees State  Insurance corporation,  Banglore  v.  Shoba Engineers,  Bangalore  &  Ors.  1982  (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 on 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 impose minor penalties specified in clauses (1) to (i) 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 regarding initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the 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  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 proceeding can be initiated by any superior authority  who can  be held  to be  the controlling 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, 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  power in  that regard.  The  memoranda  dated October 20,  1983, January  21, 1985  and July  18/25,  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 has pronounced upon the validity of Rule 16(2), Regulations 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  settled that  in accordance  with the maxim delegates  non potest delegate, a statutory power must be exercised only by the body of officer in whom it has been confided, unless  sub-delegation of  the power is authorised by  express   words  or   necessary  implication.  [  See  : Halsbury’s Laws  of England,  4th Edn. Vol. 1 para 32 p. 34; Craies on  Statute Law, 7th Edn p. 316; 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  Act only  Conceived direct delegation  by the  Corporation to different officers or authorities  subordinate to  the Corporation and there is no scope  for such  delegate to  sub-delegate that power, by authorising any  other officer  to exercise  or 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  the power  has been  delegated by the Corporation can, in  his turn,  authorise any  other officer to exercise that power  of 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  these  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 of 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 statutory power that has been conferred independently  on the  Director General. It cannot be regarded  as delegation  of powers  and functions  of the Corporation or  the Standing Committee under Section 94-A of the Act.  Section 94-A speaks of "powers and functions which may be  exercised or  performed by  the Corporation  or  the Standing Committee". The said powers and functions are other than the  powers that  are conferred  independently  on  the Director General under the Rule 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 of special order the authority which can also Act  as a  disciplinary authority and regulations 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 of  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  side regulation. The orders dated  May 10,  1974 and April 9, 1981 were passed by the Director  General in 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 clauses (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 validly  issued in  exercise of the power of delegation conferred on the Director General 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 of his powers or  duties under the Rules or the Regulation or under any resolution of the Corporation or the Standing Committee, as the  case may  be, to  any person subordinate to him, For the purpose  of such  delegation it  is necessary  for   the Director General  to obtain  the approval  of  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 two parts; one  relating to  delegation of  the powers or duties under the  Rule 16(2)  can be  divided into  two parts;  one relating to  delegation of  the powers  or duties  under the Rules or the Regulation and other relating to the powers and duties under  any  resolution  of  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  to  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 powers or  duties under  the Rules  or the  Regulations. The position is, However, different in respect of the and duties conferred on  the Director  General under  any resolution of the Corporation or the Standing Committee. The conferment of such powers  or duties under a resolution of the Corporation or the  Standing Committee  could be by way of delegation of the powers  of 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 of  a power delegated to him which is impermissible  in view  of the law laid down in Sahni Sil Mills (supra.  Rule 16(2) and the resolution of 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  the  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 according. But in the circumstances there is no order as  to costs.      SPECIAL LEAVE  PETITIONS (CIVIL)  NO. 13126-27  OF 1996 {C.C. NO. 368/1996}      Delay condoned.      The petitioner  had  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  to  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.