III for a period of one year.
The said respondent filed an application Application No.473 of 1987 before the Tribunal assailing the said respondent by the Regional Director of Karnataka Region on the basis of another Memorandum dated January 23, 1985.
1913 of 1989 was employed as Manager Gr.
The said writ petition was subsequently transferred to the Tribunal and was registered as Application No.
1982 44 FLR 100.
THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 1996 Present Honble Mr.Justice S.C.Agrawal Honble Mr.Justice G.T.Nanavati Chandrasekharan, Additional Solicitor General, J.Francis, P.I.Jose, Adv and Amlan Ghose, Advs.
368/1996 J U D G M E N T C. AGRAWAL.J. ClVIL APPEALS NOS.
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by the Regional Director on the basis of Memorandum dated July 18/25, 1986.
K. Philip respondent in Civil Appeal No.
A writ Petition was filed by the said respondent in the Karnataka High Court challenging the said memorandum and the companypetence of the Regional Director to initiate the disciplinary proceedings.
473 of 1987 filed by T. Abdul Razak and Application No 474 of 1987 filed by P.K. Philip have been disposed of by the Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated January 29, 1988 whereby the Tribunal has struck down Rule 16 2 of the Rules in its entirety, the words or the Authority specified in this behalf by a general or special order of the Director General in Regulation 12 2 and the words or any other authority empowered by him by general or special order may in Regulation 13 1 of the Regulations.
with him for the appellants J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered Director General, ESI Anr.
1913 OF 1989 AND SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION C NO.13126 27 OF 1996 C.C. NO.
T. Abdul Razak.
1678 of 1986 and Application NO.
The resolution of the Standing Committee of the Corporation dated May 24, 1968 as well as order dated May 10, 1974 and April 9, 1981 passed by the Director General have also been quashed.
3953 OF 1988, CIVIL APPEAL NO.
In taking the said view the Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that the powers of the Corporation have been delegated to the Director General under Section 94 A of the Act and since Section 94 A does number make provision for further delegation by the Director General of the power so delegated the resolution of the Standing companymittee dated May 24, 1968 as well as Rule 16 2 and Regulations 12 2 and 13 1 by empowering the Director General to specify any other person to exercise the said powers permit sub delegation by the delegate of the power delegated to him which is number permissible in view of the well known principle delegatus number potest delegare, The Tribunal has placed reliance on the decision of Karnataka High Court in The Employees State Insurance Corporation, Bangalore v. Shoba Engineers, Bangalore Ors. ,
Abdul Razak respondent in Civil Appeals Nos 3952 of 1988 and 3953 of 1988 was employed as Insurance manager Gr.
The said respondent filed and application Application NO.
The Tribunal has also quashed the memoranda dated October 20, 1983, January 21, 1985 and July 18/25, 1986 regarding initiation of disciplinary proceedings against both the respondents by the Regional Director of Karnataka Region as well as the order of punishment dated march 6, 1987 passed by the Director General against the respondent.
All the three petitions, namely, Application NO.
1678 of 1986.
The order dated March 6, 1987 was passed by the Director General himself who was the disciplinary authority and it is number open to challenge o the ground of delegation of powers by the Director General, The validity of the said order was challenged on the basis that the Regional Director was number companypetent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings in which the order was passed.
V. Abdul Razak WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
In the Said proceedings after holding an enquiry an order was passed by the Director General on March 6, 1987 imposing the penalty of reduction in rank to post of Head Clerk manager Gr.
3952/1988, 3953/1988 AND 1913/1989 These appeals directed against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal dated January 29, 1988 raise a companymon question relating to the validity of Rule 16 2 of the Employees State Insurance Central Rules, 1950 hereinafter referred to as the Rules and Regulations 12 2 and 13 1 of the Employees State Insurance Corporation Staff and Condition of Service Regulations, 1959 hereinafter referred to as the Regulations .
474 of 1987 before the Tribunal challenging the very initiation of said proceeding against him by the Regional Director.
II Inspector with the Corporation, Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by the Regional Director of Karnataka Region on the basis or Memorandum dated October 20, 1983.
