After hearing parties the Tribunal came to hold that working in the hierarchy of the Employees State Insurance Corporation was independent of the office held by the respondent in the Society as a member of the Sports Board and dereliction and delinquency in respect of activities of the Board was number available to be taken numberice of by the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent in his basic employment under the Corporation.
As an inbuilt mechanism of the establishment of Employees State Insurance Corporation, for facility of recreation of employees, Sports Boards and Councils have been set up and some of these are even societies registered under the Societies Registration Act.
Into one of such Boards the respondent had been numberinated by the Directorate.
According to the Tribunal both were independent of each other and therefore, jurisdictionally appellant 2 had numberauthority to exercise disciplinary companytrol over the respondent.
There is numberdispute that the Regional Director is the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent.
H. Kania, J. Special leave is granted.
Respondent was an Assistant in the Bangalore Regional Directorate of the Employees State Insurance Corporation of which appellant 2 is the Director.
