High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Barai Shukla v. The Chairman, U.P.S.R.T.C. & Others - WRIT - A No. 19172 of 1999  RD-AH 4606 (21 October 2005)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19172 of 1999
Ram Barai Shukla Vs. The Chairman U.P.S.R.T.C. &
Hon'ble Vikram Nath J.
Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sameer Sharma representing the respondents.
The prayer sought for in this petition is that the order dated 9.2.1999 passed by the Chief General Manager (Tech.) dismissing the appeal of the petitioner be quashed and the direction be issued to the Managing Director to decide the appeal afresh.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that before the appellate authority several grounds were taken, however, the impugned order firstly does not deal with the various contentions raised by the petitioner in his appeal and secondly it has been passed by an authority not empowered to exercise appellate jurisdiction..
The first contention is that the various points urged in the appeal which went to the root of the matter and in case if such question was decided in his favour, the order of punishment could not have been sustained having not been dealt with by appellate authority, the said order stands vitiated.
I have examined the memo of appeal which has been filed as Annexure-10 to the petition and also the order passed by appellate authority on 9.2.99 (impugned in this appeal) it is apparent that the appellate authority did not deal with all the questions raised in the appeal. The main contention of the petitioner in the appeal was that his service was governed by Standing Orders certified under the Industrial Dispute Act and not by the Service Regulation framed by the Corporation in the year 1981, as the same has never been notified. These facts are specifically covered in para A, B and C in the grounds of appeal. Further reference has been made to the order of Deputy Labour Commissioner dated 25.5.89 addressed to the Deputy General Manager of Corporation holding that the services of the petitioner was governed by the Standing Order and not by the Service Regulation. The contention of the petitioner is that in case it is held that Service Regulation was not applicable and the order of punishment etc. could have been passed only under the Standing Order, the punishment awarded to the petitioner could not be sustained. The appellate authority while dealing with the appeal of the petitioner has not adverted to the said question nor has considered this aspect of the matter. Therefore, I am inclined to remit the matter to the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law by a reasoned order dealing with the various points raised by the petitioner in his appeal.
With regard to the second question as to whether the Chief General Manager (Tech.) who decided the appeal in 1999 was duly authorized an competent to decide the appeal of the petitioner, Sri Sameer Sharma learned counsel for the respondent has referred to paragraph no.12 of the counter affidavit. According to said paragraph the Managing Director of the Corporation had delegated the appellate power to the Chief General Manager (Tech.) vide order dated 1.3.1993 a copy whereof is also annexed as Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit. Along with the petition, the petitioner has annexed a detail chart spelling out the specific authorities with their administrative powers in respect of different class of employees (Annexure No. 13 to the petition). Clause 8 of the said table deals with the appellate authority and provides that where the order is passed by Deputy General Manager, the Managing Director would be the appellate authority. It is further provided that he would have power to delegate his authority to such subordinate officer with the condition that such an officer should be of a higher grade than the officer awarding punishment. There is no dispute that the Chief General Manager who has decided the appeal is an officer of grade higher to the Chief Manager who passed the order of punishment. On the other hand learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the delegation filed as Annexure- CA-1 was not by designation but by name in favour of Sri H.K. Singh and therefore in the absence of any fresh delegation in favour of Sri B. Misra the officer who had passed the impugned order, the order judgment would be bad in law. No such delegation in favour of Sri B. Misra has been filed by the respondent Corporation. Since this matter is being remanded to the appellate authority on the first question it is left open for the Managing Director either to decide the appeal himself or in case such powers have been validly delegated to some authority it may be decided by the said authority duly vested with the appellate powers in respect of the petitioner.
Since this is an old petition pending for the last six years it is directed to the appellate authority will pass fresh orders within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 9.2.99 is set aside and the appellate authority is directed to pass fresh order in the appeal within a period of three months in the light of the observations made above.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.