TARA CHAND KHATRI versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 198 · Decided: 26-11-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
198 
TARA CHAND KHATRI 
v. 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. 
November 26. 1976 
[A. N. RAY, c. J., M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJJ 
Serl' ice matter-Disciplinary A whority-Recording reasons-When 
obli-
gatory. 
Higlz Court-If 11nder a d11ty to enq11ire into allegatiom of mala fides. 
The appellant, a school teacher under the Delhi Municipal Corporation. was 
dismissed from service by the Deputy Commissioner (Education) after follow-
ing the procedure prescribed under the Regulations. 
His appeal to the Com-
missioner of the Corporation was dismissed and his writ petition was dismissed 
in limine by the High Court. On further appeal to this Court it was contended 
that ( 1) the order of dismissal was invalid for the reason that the Commissioner 
being the appointing authority, the Deputy Commissioner was incompetent to 
dismiss him and the regulation conferring power on the Deputy Commissioner 
to dismiss a municipal employee drawing less than Rs. 350 being inconsistent 
with s. 95 of the Delhi Municipal Corporatiori Act 1957 is void; (2) s'nce die 
disciplinary authority had neither recorded its findings nor given its reasons 
in the order of dismissal it is vitiated and ( 3) the petition should not have 
been dismissed in limine by the Hi~h Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : ( 1) The appellant's appointment having been made by the Deputy 
Commissioner, who possessed plenary powers in that behalf by virtue of the 
delegation of power to him, there was neither any legal bar to his dismissal 
by that authority nor a breach of the first proviso to s. 95 (1). 
In his writ 
petition before the High Court the appellant failed to make 
any 
averment 
regarding the incompetence of the Deputy Commissioner to pass the impugned 
order and the 'invalidity of the regulaHon. 
None of his pleas was tenable in 
view of the order of the Commissioner delegating his powers to the Deputy 
Commissioner, his actual appointment as an Assistant Teacher by the Deputy 
Commissioner and regulation T being consistent with s. 9 5 ( 1) of the Act. [204 
E & CJ 
The Mana;:ement of D.T.U. v. Shri B.B.L. Hajeley & Anr. [1973] 2 S.C.R. 
114 and Municipal Corporation of. Delhi v. Ram Partap Singh (Civil Appeal 
No. 2449(N) of 1969 delivered on January 8, 1976), held inapplicable. 
(2)(a) Although it may be necessary for the disciplinary 
authority 
to 
record 
it~ provisional conclusions in the notice calling upon the delinquent 
officer to show cause why the proposed punishment be not imposed upon him 
if it differs from the findings arrived at by the enquiry officer with regard to 
the· charge, it is not obligatory to do so in case the disciplinary authority con-
curs w:'.th the findings of the enquiring officer. {205 Fl 
In the instant case it is apparent from the order of the Deouty Commissioner 
that he ;,greed with the findings of the Enquiring Otlicer. 
[208 AJ 
State of Orissa v. Govinddas Pande (Civil Appeal No. 412 of 1958 decided 
on December 10, 1962) and State of Assam & Anr. v. Vinwl Kumar Pandit 
A.LR 1963 S.C. 1612 f'ollowed. 
1 
(b) While it may be necessary for a disciplinary or administrative authority 
. , 
e.xercising quasi-judicial functions to state the reasons in support of its order 
' 
if it differs from the conclusions arrived at and the recommendations made by 
•• 
I 
TARA CHAND v. M. CORPN. (Jaswant Singh, J.) 
199 
1he enquiring officer in view of the sc~eine of a particular . f'.nactme~t or the 
rules made thereunder, it would be laymg down the propos1tlon a little 
too 
broadly to say that even an order of concurrence must be supported by reasons. 
it cannot be laid down as a general rule that an order is a non-speaking order 
simply because it is brief and not elaborate. Every case has to be judged in 
the light of its own facts. [208 BJ 
Sardar Govindrao & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1965] 1 S.C.a. 678, 
A 
Bhagat Raja v. The Union of India & Ors. [1967] 3 S.C.R. 302, Travancore 
B 
Rayon Ltd. v. Union of India [1970] 3 S.C.R. 40, Mahabir Prasad 
Santosh 
Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors. [1971] 1 S.C.R. 201, Rangnath v. Daulatrao & 
Ors. [1975] 1 S.C.C. 686 and The Siemens Engineering & Mano;facturinf.( Co. of 
illdia Ltd. v. The Union of India & Anr. [1976] 2 S.C.C. 981, inapplicable. 
(c) M.P. Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [1966] 1 S.C.R. 466 contains a, 
correct statement of law. 
In Bhagat Raja v. The Union of India, [1967] · 3 
S.C.R. 302 this Court did not make any observ

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.