1972 (9) TMI 151 - SC - Indian Laws

Court rules removal of respondent by Assistant General Manager illegal under Corporation Act SS95(1).

The Court concluded that the removal of the respondent by the Assistant General Manager was illegal. The statutory protection under Section 95(1) of the ... - Issues Involved:1. Competency of the Assistant General Manager to remove the respondent from service.2. Interpretation of Section 95(1) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act.3. Validity of delegation of powers by the General Manager to the Assistant General Manager.4. Applicability of statutory protection against removal by a subordinate authority.Detailed Analysis:Competency of the Assistant General Manager to Remove the Respondent from ServiceThe primary issue in this case was whether the Assistant General Manager (Transport) of the Delhi Transport Undertaking of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was a competent authority to remove the respondent from service. The respondent, originally employed as a driver by the Delhi Road Transport Authority, became an employee of the Corporation in January 1958 by virtue of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. A disciplinary enquiry led to the Assistant General Manager deciding to remove the respondent from service. The Labour Court did not approve this action, stating that only the General Manager had the authority to remove the respondent. The High Court upheld this view, leading to the present appeal.Interpretation of Section 95(1) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation ActSection 95(1) of the Corporation Act specifies that no municipal officer or employee shall be removed or dismissed by any authority subordinate to that by which they were appointed. The proviso to this section was central to the respondent's argument that his removal by the Assistant General Manager was unauthorized and illegal. The Court agreed, emphasizing that the proviso provides statutory protection against removal by a subordinate authority.Validity of Delegation of Powers by the General Manager to the Assistant General ManagerSections 491 and 504 of the Corporation Act allow the General Manager to delegate his powers to other municipal officers or employees. The General Manager had indeed delegated his power to appoint and remove a driver to the Assistant General Manager in 1961. However, the Court held that this delegation did not extend to the rank and status of the appointing authority. The proviso to Section 95(1) protects employees from being removed by a subordinate authority, and this statutory protection cannot be nullified by delegation.Applicability of Statutory Protection Against Removal by a Subordinate AuthorityThe Court emphasized that statutory protection provided by Section 95(1) cannot be overridden by rules or regulations made under the same statute. This protection ensures that an employee cannot be removed by an authority subordinate to the one that appointed them. The Court referenced the case of R.T. Rangachari v. Secretary of State, where a similar statutory protection was upheld, reinforcing the principle that statutory safeguards must be observed with utmost care.ConclusionThe Court concluded that the removal of the respondent by the Assistant General Manager was illegal. The statutory protection under Section 95(1) of the Corporation Act could not be nullified by the delegation of powers from the General Manager to the Assistant General Manager. The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court's judgment was upheld, ensuring that the respondent's removal was unauthorized and invalid.Judgment:The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming that the Assistant General Manager was not a competent authority to remove the respondent from service.