DIRECTOR GENERAL, ESI AND ANR. versus T. ABDUL RAZAK ETC.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 80 · Decided: 08-07-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
DIRECTOR GENERAL, ES! AND ANR. 
v. 
T. ABDUL RAZAK ETC. 
JULY 8, 1996 
fS.C. AGARWAL AND G.T. NANA VAT!, JJ.J 
Employees' State Insurance C01poration Act, 1941!-Sections 16, 17, 
94A-Employees' State Insurance (Central) Rules, 195(}-Ru/e 16-
C Employee's State Insurance Cmporation (Staff and Conditions of Service) 
Regulation, 1959-Regulations 12 & IJ-Disciplinary Autlwlities----Powen· 
and duties of Director General-It is not necessa1y that the autholity co1n-
11ctent to i111pose penalty nntst initiate disciplinal)' proceedings-Proceedings 
can be initiated by any supC1ior authmity who can be held to be the controlling 
authority who may be an officer subordinate to the appointing authmity-
D ReJpondent en1ployed as Insurance Alanager Gr.11/ln.spector lvith En117/oyees' 
State Insurance Co1poration-lnitiation of disciplinary proceedings against 
hinz by Regional Director-Legal-Power confe1Ted on Director General under 
a ntlc or a regulation-Statuto1y power-It cannot be regarded as delegation 
of powers and functions of the C01poration or the Standing Commi.rtee u/s 
E 94A. 
The respondent was employed as Insurance Manager Gr.II/Inspector 
with the Employees State Insurance Corporatioa. Disciplinary proceedings 
were initiated against him by the Regional Director of Karnataka Region 
on the basis of Memorandum dated 20.10.1983 and after holding an enquiry 
F an order was passed by the Director General imposing the penalty of 
reduction in rank to the post of Head Clerk/Manager Gr. III for a .Period 
of one year. The respondent filed an application before the Tribunal assail-
ing the order. On the basis of another Memorandum dated 23.1.1985. 
disciplinary proceedings were started against the respondent by the 
G Regional Director of Karnataka Region which were challenged by filing a 
writ petition. The respondent challenged the Memorandum and the com-
petence of the Regional Director to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. 
The Tribunal struck domi Rule 16(2) of the Employees' State Insurance 
(Central) Ruleo, 1950, in its enti1rety, the words 'or the authority specified 
in this behalf by a general or special order of the Director General' in 
H Regulation 12 (2) and the words 'or any other authority expowered by him 
80 
~· 
DIRECTOR GENERAL, ES! v. TA RAZAK 
81 
by general or special order may' in Regulation 13(1) of the Employees' State A 
Insurance Corporation (Stall and Condition of Service) Regulation, 1959. 
The Tribunal also quashed the memoranda dated 20.10.1983, 21.1.85 and 
18/25.7.1986 regarding initiation of disciplinary proceedings against both 
the respondents as well as the order of punishment passed by the Director 
General. The Tribunal held that there was delegation of power of the 
Corporation to Director General and it was not permissible in law for the 
Director General to further delegate the said powers to the Regional Direc-
tor. These appeals had been filed against the order of the Tribunal. 
Disposing of the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. 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 
B 
c 
be the controlling authority who may be an otlicer subordinate to the 
appointing authority. In the instant case, the Regional Director, being the 
officer in charge of the region, \\'as the controlling authority in respect of D 
the respondents appointed as Insurance Manager Gr. !I/Inspector with the 
Corporation. He could institute disciplinary proceedings against the 
respondents even in the absence of specific conferment of a pO\\!er 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, did not suffer from any 
legal infirmity. (91-G-H, 92-A-B] 
E 
1.2. A statutory power must be exercised only by the body or officer 
in whom it has been confided, unless sub-delegation of the pol-ver is 
authorised by express words or necessary implication. The Tribunal had, 
F 
rightly held that Section 94-A of the Employees' State Insurance Corpora-
tion Act does not specifically provide that an otlicer or authority subor-
dinate to the Corporation to whom the power has been delegated by the 
Corporation can, in his turn, authorise any other officer to exercise that 
power or function. (92-G) 
G 
1.3.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.