THE MANAGEMENT OF D.T.U. versus SHRI B. B. L. HAJELAY & ANR.

Citation: [1973] 2 S.C.R. 114 · Decided: 06-09-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

114 
THE MANAGEMENT OF D.T.U. 
v. 
SHRI B. B. L. HAJELAY & ANR. 
September 6, 1972 
[J. M. SHELAT, D. G. PALEKAR AND S. N. DWIVEDI, JJ.] 
Disciplinary proceedings-Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957-
Ss. 92, 95(1) and proviso, 491 and 504-Remova/ by of]icer subordinate 
to the appointing authority-Effect of delegation of functions by the 
appointing ahthority-Subordinatwn ~ of rank 
and 
not 
fun<·rions-
Protection cannot be de~royed by the concept of agency. 
By the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 the Delhi Road 
Transport Authority Act, 1950, was repealed and the functions of the 
Authority were taken over by the Corporation. Every employee of the 
Authority stood transferred to and became an employee of the Corpora-
tion from January 1958. 
Under s. 92 of the Corporation Act the power of appointing municipal 
officers and other municipal employees to posts carrying 
a (minimum 
monthly salary of Rs. 350/_ vest in the General Manager (Transport). 
Section 95(1) dealing with disciplinary matters provides 
that 
every 
officer or other employee shall be liable to be punished by such authority 
as may be prescribed by regulations. 
By the proviso to sub .. ection ( 1) 
of s. 95 no officer or employee shall be reduced in rank, compulsorily 
retired, i:emoved or dismissed by any authority subordinate to that by 
which he was appointed. 
Section 491 read with 
504 
empowers 
the 
General Manager (Transport) to direct by order that any power con-
ferred or any duty imposed on him by or under the Act shall be exer-
cised and performed also by any municipal officer specified 
in 
the 
order. 
Respondent No. 2 was originally employed as a driver in the Delhi 
Transport Authority. 
He became an employee of the Corporation from 
January 1958. 
The minimum monthly salary drawn by him was less 
than Rs. 350/-. 
After a disciplinary enquiry the 
Assistant 
General 
Manager remoyed the respondent from service with effect from May 
16, 1963. 
The La.hour Court, in an application under s. 33(2) (b) 
of the Industrial Disputes Act, did not grant approval of the action 
on the ground that the General Manager alone could have removed him 
from service. 
The High Court confirmed this view. 
It was common 
ground that the General Manager (Transport) had by order issued in 
1961 delegated his power to the Assistant General Manager to appoint 
and consequently, to remove from service a driver lilce respondent 
No. 2. 
In the appeal to this Court it was contended by the appellant 
Undertaking that the respondent was originally employed by the Mana.ger 
of the Road 'Transport Authority constituted under the 1950 Act and 
on the repeal of that Act and the take over of the authority by the Corpo-
ration any officer of the appellant Undertaking competent to appoint or 
remove a driver was entitled to remove him from service; tba.t the 
Assistant General Manager of the Undertaking could not be described 
as an authority subordinate to the Manager of the Delhi Road Transport 
Authority; and that in 2"1y event the Assistant General Manager had be· 
come an agent Qf the General Manager. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
ff 
A 
B 
' c 
D 
E 
MANAGEMENT D.T.U. v. B.B.L. HAJELAY (Palekar, J.) 
115 
HELD : (i) Respondent No. 2 at the time of his absorption in 
January 1958 would be deemed to have been appointed under s. 92(1) 
(b) which would mean that he was appointed by the General Manager 
(Transport). 
Being so, appointed, no subordinate of bis including the 
Assistant General Manager would be entitled to remove him in view 
of s. 95 (I) proviso. 
The only consequence of the delegation of func-
tions of the General Manager to the Assistant General Manager would 
be that if after 1961 the Assistant General Manager makes the appoint-
ment of a driver like respondent No. 2 he would no doubt be entitled 
to remove him from service. [1180-E) 
(ii) A protection which is given to an employee bv statute cannot 
be nullified by rules and regulations r.uthorised by the statute itse1'f. If the 
Corporation itself could.not have by a regulation destroyed the. protection 
given by the statute to respondent No. 2, it would be inappropriate to say 
that General Manager by an order delc~ating his functions to the Assistant 
GenereJ Manager under s. 491 read with S94 the Corporation Act could 
destroy the protection. The true position in law is that while sections 491 
and S04 ,read together authoriml the General Manager (Transport) to 
delegate

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