Delhi High Court
Shri Ram Narain, S/O Shri Chandi ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through The ... on 23 September, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003 (66) DRJ 668
Author: V Jain
Bench: V Jain
JUDGMENT
Vijender Jain, J.
1. Mr. G.D. Gupta, learned counsel for the
petitioner has contended that the order dated 6.11.1989
placing the petitioner under suspension as well as the
order of imposing penalty of compulsory retirement from
his service w.e.f. 21.8.1991 be quashed.
2. This writ petition can be disposed of at this
stage on the ground that in the writ petition it has been
averred in para (G) of the Ground that the disciplinary
authority passed its order dated 21.8.1991 on the report
of the inquiry officer, which was never supplied to the
petitioner.
3. That aspect of the matter has not been
controverter by the respondent. Yet another submission
of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in
terms of SR 64 of the ICCSR Service Regulations, 1970 in
case of major penalty such penalty cannot be imposed
until an opportunity has been granted to the employee to
make representation against the penalty proposed to be
awarded in the light of the finding of the inquiry
officer. In support of his arguments, counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon Pradeep Kumar Biswas v.
Indian Institute of Chemical Biology ,
Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar and Union of India and Ors. v. Mohd. Ramjan Khan
.
4. It seems that the respondent has filed an
affidavit taking the plea that this Court while
exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 has no
jurisdiction in view of the fact that ICCSR is not a
State within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India.
5. In view of the Constitutional Bench Judgment of
seven judges of the Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Biswas
(supra) it is no more res integra that the ICCSR is not a
State. Even otherwise by the plain and simple language
of Article 226 of the Constitution there is no inherent
lack of jurisdiction as far as jurisdiction of this Court
is concerned, to issue appropriate writ or a direction to
an authority which is not only a State but even to a
person. The plain language used in Article 226 of the
Constitution of India starts with words "Notwithstanding
anything in Article 32". Therefore, when the founding
fathers of the Constitution never wanted to impose any
limitation on the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India how that restriction can be read
while interpreting Article 226 of the Constitution.
Therefore, there is no force in the arguments of learned
counsel for the respondent that the respondents are not
amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court. Even
otherwise a learned Single Judge of this court in the
case of M.L. Sondhi v. Union of India and Ors. 2002 III
AD (Delhi) 872 has decided that ICCSR is amenable to the
writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent has not denied
that the inquiry report of the inquiry was not given to
the petitioner as has been contended by the petitioner in
para (G) of the writ petition. In view of the admitted
facts of the case, the order of termination is passed
without applying the safeguards of service regulations as
well as it has violated the principle of giving
reasonable opportunity to the charged officer, thereby
making the order of termination illegal.
7. I quash the order dated 6.11.1989 and 21.8.1991.
The petitioner will be re-instated in service with all
consequential benefits. However, I grant liberty to the
respondent to hold fresh inquiry, if they wish to do so,
in accordance with law.
8. Petition stands disposed of.
9. Rule is made absolute.
