Delhi High Court
Council For Advancement Of ... vs National Commission For ... on 12 January, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3929/2014
% 12th January, 2015
COUNCIL FOR ADVANCEMENT OF PEOPLE'S ACTION & RURAL
TECHNOLOGY (CAPART) ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.S.K.Rungta, Sr.Advocate with
Mr.Prashant Singh and Ms.Heena Dua,
Advocates.
versus
NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES AND ANR.
..... Respondents
Through Mr.Ruchir Mishra, Advocate for UOI.
Ms.Jyoti Singh, Sr.Advocate with
Mr.Padma Kumar, Ms.Tinu Bajwa and
Mr.Sameer Sharma, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by
the employer -Council for Advancement of People's Action and Rural
Technology (CAPART) impugning certain communications to it and its
officers by the respondent no.1/Commission being the National
Commission for Scheduled Castes. The prayers made in this writ petition
read as under:-
" In view of the above it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to:-
A. Allow this petition;
B. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or
direction thereby calling for the records relating to the proceedings
initiated by respondent Commission on particularly proceeding dt.
5.2.13, 7.4.14, 19.5.14 & 9.6.14 on various representations of
respondent no.2 (now under suspension) particularly representations
dt.10.5.11, 21.2.14, 23.4.14, 25.4.14 & 19.5.14 examine the same and
quash it by declaring that respondent no.1 does not have jurisdiction
or power to entertain such complaint and interfere in the service
matters.
C. Issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ order or
direction thereby restraining the respondent no.1 from summoning the
officers of petitioner organization on such representations of
respondent no.2 and from interfering in the management and control
of the affairs of petitioner particularly in the administrative matters
relating to its employees in any manner whatsoever.
D. Grant any other relief which Your Lordship deem fit and proper
in the circumstances of the case."
2. It is the common case of all the parties, and which could not have
been otherwise, that, parties are bound by the ratio of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST
Employees' Welfare Association and Others Vs. Union of India and
Others (1996) 6 SCC 606, and which judgment has been recently followed
by the Supreme Court in the case of Bank of Patiala & Ors. Vs. Vinesh
Kumar Bhasin (2010) 4 SCC 368, and the ratio of the aforesaid two cases
is that the Commission which acts as per the limited particular powers by
which it is constituted has no powers which are provided to issue directions
or injunctions or compliance orders with respect to a particular employer/
employee i.e the power prescribed is only to investigate and enquire into
matters within the jurisdiction of the commission and as specified under
Article 338 of the Constitution of India.
3. In view of the ratio of the aforesaid two judgments of the Supreme
Court, counsel who appears for respondent no.1/Commission states that the
Commission is not going to pass any direction or injunction or compliance
order which will in any manner violate the ratio of the aforesaid two
judgments of the Supreme Court, and it is stated that the respondent
no.1/Commission will only investigate and enquire into the complaints
which are within its jurisdiction under Article 338 of the Constitution of
India and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules 1995').
4. Once that is so, and both the parties agree that no directions or
injunction or compliance orders can be passed by the Commission, to the
extent that the respondent no.1/Commission can make investigation and
enquiries within the bounds of Article 338 of the Constitution of India,
these powers cannot be challenged.
5. However an issue remains as to whether the employer/petitioner can
take disciplinary actions against an employee such as the respondent no.2 or
any other action under the service rules, and whether the said aspect can be
parallely enquired by the respondent no.1/Commission. Learned counsel for
the respondent no.1/Commission concedes that the jurisdiction of an
employer under the service rules and service law with respect to taking an
action or giving or not giving promotion or giving or not giving any
monetary emoluments etc. would be within the jurisdiction only of the
employer, and which aspect will be and can be questioned only before the
Central Administrative Tribunal since the employer/petitioner is covered
under the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. Therefore, while
preserving the statutory and legal rights of the respondent no.1/Commission
to enquire into and investigate into the affairs which are strictly within the
provisions of Article 338 of the Constitution of India and Rules 1995, it is
made clear that the respondent no.1/Commission will not exercise its
function in such a way which will in any manner cause overlapping of its
functions with the functions which the petitioner is entitled to carry on
under service law with respect to the respondent no.2 or any other employee
of the petitioner. The order of observing so is for ensuring that two
parallel proceedings cannot go on with respect to any departmental
enquiries etc or any other action which the employer is entitled to under the
service rules /service law against the respondent no.2 or any other employee
for that matter.
6. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of clarifying the
scope of operation/enquiry/investigation etc etc. of the petitioner/employer
and the respondent no.1/Commission as stated above.
7. The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid
observations, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
JANUARY 12, 2015
KA
