473 of 1987 before the Tribunal assailing the said order, disciplinary proceedings were started against the said respondent by the Regional Director of Karnataka Region on the basis of another Memorandum dated January 23, 1985.
THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 1996 Present Honble Mr. Justice S.C Agrawal Honble Mr. Justice G.T. Nanavati Chandrasekharan, Additional solicitor General, V.J. Francis, P.I. Jose, Adv.
A writ petition was field 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.
All the three petitions, namely, Application No.
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 The Employees State Insurance Corporation for short the Corporation is a statutory companyporation established under the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Corporation Act, 1948 herein after referred to as the Act .
II Inspector with the companyporation.
1678 of 1986 and application 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 the post of Head Clerk Manager Gr.
1678 of 1986.
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by the Regional Director on the basis of Memorandum dated July 18/25, 1986.
and Amlan Ghose, Advs.
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 Regulation.
In this companytext, it may be mentioned that numberorder of the Director General delegating his powers regarding initiation of disciplinary proceedings under Regulation 13 1 had been placed before the Tribunal.
1913 of 1989 was employed as Manager Gr.
Abdul Razak respondent in Civil Appeals Nos.
3952 of 1988 and 3953 of 1988 was employed as Insurance Manager Gr.
The said respondent filed an application Application No.
The said writ petition was subsequently transferred to the Tribunal and was registered as Application No.
747 of 1987 before the Tribunal challenging the very initiation of said proceedings against him by the Regional Director.
J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered Director General, ESI Anr.
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.
The Tribunal was, therefore, primarily companycerned with the validity of three memoranda referred to above regarding initiation of disciplinary proceedings by the Regional Director.
with him for the appellants.
K. Philip respondent in Civil Appeal NO.
III for a period of one year.
The resolution of the Standing Committee of the Corporation dated May 24, 1968 as well as orders dated May 10, 1974 and April 9, 1981 passed by the Director General have also been quashed.
1913 OF 1989 AND SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION C NO 13126 27 OF 1996 C.C. NO.
3953 OF 1988, CIVIL APPEAL NO.
V. Abdul Razak WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The said respondent filed an application Application No.
The Standing Committee had earlier passed a resolution dated May 24, 1968 in the following terms Resolved that numberwithstanding any restrictions imposed earlier, the Director General may delegate any of his power under the Rules, or the Regulations or under any resolution of the Corporation and the Standing Committee, as the case may be, to any officer subordinate to him, subject to such restrictions, limitations and companyditions, if any, as the Director General may impose from time to time.
The Tribunal has also quashed the memorandum dated October 20, 1983, January 21, 1985 and July 18/25, 1986 regarding initiation of disciplinary proceedings against both the respondents by Regional Director of Karnataka Region as well as the order of punishment dated March 6, 1987 passed by the Director General against the respondent, T. Abdul Razak.
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by the regional Director of Karnataka Region on the basis of Memorandum dated October 20, 1983.
368/1996 J U D G M E N T C. AGRAWAL, J. CIVIL APPEALS NOS.
