Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal by Management of Delhi Transport Undertaking in Disciplinary Removal Case Upholding Statutory Protection Against Subordinate Authority. Employee Deemed Appointed Under Section 92(1)(b) of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, and Removal by Assistant General Manager Was Unauthorized Since Delegation of Functions Does Not Include Delegation of Rank.

Case Note & Summary

The case arose from disciplinary action taken by the Delhi Transport Undertaking of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi against a driver who had originally been employed by the Delhi Road Transport Authority under the Delhi Road Transport Authority Act, 1950. Upon repeal of that Act by the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, the driver's services were transferred to the Corporation effective January 1958, and he was deemed appointed under the Corporation Act. In 1962, a disciplinary enquiry was initiated by the Assistant General Manager (Transport), who ultimately ordered the driver's removal from service with effect from 16 May 1963. Since an industrial dispute was pending before the Labour Court, the management sought approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court refused approval on the ground that only the General Manager could remove the driver, not the Assistant General Manager, because the driver's post carried a minimum monthly salary below Rs. 350 and therefore under Section 92(1)(b) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 the General Manager was the appointing authority. The Labour Court's decision was upheld by the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 719 of 1969, leading to the appeal by special leave to the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether the Assistant General Manager was competent to remove the employee in view of the proviso to Section 95(1) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, which prohibited removal by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority, and in light of the General Manager's 1961 delegation of powers to the Assistant General Manager under Sections 491 and 504 of the Act. The appellant management contended that the driver had been originally appointed by the Manager of the Delhi Road Transport Authority, not the General Manager, and that the Assistant General Manager was not subordinate to that Manager; further, the Assistant General Manager had become an agent of the General Manager due to the delegation. The respondent employee contended that he was deemed appointed by the General Manager under Section 92(1)(b), and that the Assistant General Manager, being a subordinate, was barred from removing him. The Supreme Court rejected the appellant's contentions. It held that under Section 516(2)(a) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, the driver's appointment continued and was deemed to have been made under the provisions of the Corporation Act, specifically under Section 92(1)(b), which vested appointing power in the General Manager for posts carrying less than Rs. 350 monthly salary. Therefore, the driver was deemed to have been appointed by the General Manager in January 1958. The delegation of functions by the General Manager to the Assistant General Manager in 1961 could only affect appointments made after that date; it could not retrospectively alter the appointing authority for the driver already in service. The Court emphasized that the proviso to Section 95(1) gave statutory protection to every employee against removal by an authority subordinate in rank to the appointing authority. Although Sections 491 and 504 allowed the General Manager to delegate powers and functions, they did not authorize delegation of rank. The subordination contemplated in the proviso was subordination of rank, not functions. The Court further observed that it was implicit in the statutory prohibition that the appointing authority had to personally apply its mind to the question of removal and could not delegate that function; the protection could not be destroyed by importing concepts of agency. The Court referred to R.T. Rangachari v. Secretary of State, 64 Indian Appeals 40, though that precedent's specific reasoning was not detailed in the text. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the order of removal passed by the Assistant General Manager was unauthorized and illegal, and confirming the Labour Court's refusal to grant approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the Assistant General Manager was not competent to remove respondent no.2 because respondent no.2 was deemed appointed by the General Manager under Section 92(1)(b) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, and the proviso to Section 95(1) barred removal by an authority subordinate in rank to the appointing authority. Delegation of functions under Sections 491 and 504 did not delegate rank, and the appointing authority must personally apply mind to removal; agency concept does not destroy statutory protection. The order of removal was unauthorized and illegal.

Law Points