Dr S C Batra v. Union of India & Ors

1. Dr.S.C.Batra while working as Secretary with the respondent No.2 Central Warehousing Corporation(in short'CWC')was issued two charge sheetsone dated March03,2004andthe other dated August 13,2004. Both LPA Nos.377/2013&387/2013 Page[1] of12 2015:DHC:11259-DB It these charge-sheets were challenged by way of two writ petitions being W.P.(C)Nos.142/2005 and 143/2005 respectively which petitions have been dismissed by a commonimpugnedjudgmentdated April 17,2013 and hence the two appeals before this Court.

2. In LPA No.387/2013, Dr.S.C.Batra seeks setting aside of the judgment dated April 17, 2013 in W.P.(C) No.142/2005 whereas in LPA No.377/2013 he seeks setting aside ofthejudgment dated April 17,2013 in W.P.(C) No.143/2005. Vide the charge sheet dated August 13, 2004 challenged in W.P.(C) No.143/2005 the statement of article of charge framed againstthe appellant were as under: "STATEMENT OF ARTICLE OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST SHRl S.C.BATRA.

SECRETARY (THE THEN MANAGER (PURCHASE.

CWC CORPORATE OFFICE, NEWDELHI. Shri S.C.Batra, while working as Manager (Purchase) during the periodfrom 13.5.93 to 5.4.98, did not consider all the available records/information in Purchase Division and suppressed the same from Technical Committee/ Purchase Committee while framing the policy for conversion ofmechanicalLorry Weigh Bridges(LWBs)into Electro-mechanical/ElectronicLWBs as well aspurchase of electronic LWBs/conversion of mechanical LWBs into electromechanical LWBs from M/s.Weigh-Well (India), Chandigarh. As a result, the Corporation was put into heavy financial loss as detailed in the Statement of Imputation. He was, thus, negligent in performance ofhis duties, acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest ofthe Corporation andfailed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, thereby violating Regulation 39(i)(a)& (b)ofthe CWC(Staff)Regulations, 1986."

3. The Articles of charge in the charge sheet dated March 03, 2004 LPA Nos.377/2013&387/2013 ^ challenged in W.P.(C)No.142/2005 aretwofold i.e.:- "STATEMENT OF ARTICLE OF CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST SHRI S.C.BATRA, SECRETARY, CWC CORPORATE OFFICE,NEWDELHI Char2e-I ShriS.C.Batra while workingasSecretaryfailedin his dutiesandresponsibilities in the matter ofpurchaseofMulti Layered CrossLaminated Covers(MLCL covers)during the year 2000 as detailed in the Statement ofImputation of misconduct (Annexure-II). Shri S.C.Batra thus failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty contravening Regulation 39(i)(a)&(b)read with 40(v)(ix) ofCWCRegulations, 1986. Charse-II Shri S.C.Batra while working as Secretary in the year 2000failed to supervise the work and take allpossible steps to ensure absolute integrity and devotion to duty of Manager (Purchase) working under his control and authority as detailed in the Statement ofImputation. (Ann- II), thereby committed the misconduct of neglect of work/negligence in performance of his duties and contravened Regulation 39(ii) read with 40 (ix) of CWC (Staff Regulations, 1986."

4. We need not deal further into the articles of charge because in 2005 when the writ petitions were filed the only issues urged by learned counsel for the appellant before the learned Single Judge and re-agitated before this Court is that the charge sheet dated August 13, 2004,though approved by the Board, suffers from non-application of mind as the board failed to consider the entire documents whereas in relation to the charge sheet dated LPA Nos.377/2013&387/2013 Page3of12 March 03, 2004 which is the subject matter of LPA No.387/2013 the contention isthatthe competentauthority being the Board ofDirector ofthe CWC no charge sheet could have been issued by the Managing Director alone and thus the charge sheetdated March 03,2004 was null and void.

5. It would be relevant to note regulations 60 and 61 of the Central Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1986 (in short 'the Regulations')as under:- "60. Disciplinary Authority- The disciplinary authority as specified in the Appendix-1 or any authority higher than it may impose any ofthe penalties specified in regulation 59 on any employee.

61. ProcedureforImposing MajorPenalties-

(i) No order imposing any ofthe majorpenalties specified in clause (e), (f),(g)and(h)ofregulation 59shall be made except after an enquiry is held in accordance with this regulation. (a) Whenever the disciplinary authority is ofthe opinion that there are groundsfor inquiring into the truth ofany imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against an employee, it may itselfenquire into, or appoint any public servant (hereinafter called the inquiring authority) to inquire into the truth thereof. (Hi) Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry, the disciplinary authority shall frame definite charscs on the basis ofthe allegations against the employee. The charges together with a statement ofthe allegations on which they are based, a list of documents by which and a list of witnesses by whom the articles ofcharges are proposed to be sustained shall be communicated in writing to the employee who shall be required to submit within such time, not exceeding 15 days, as may be specified by the LPA Nos.377/2013&387/2013 Page4of12 disciplinciry authoritya written statementwhether he admits ordeniesanyorallofthearticles ofcharges. Explanation:- It will not be necessary to show the documents listed with the charge-sheet or any other documentto the employeeatthisstage. Competent Authorities for Appointment, Disciplinary Action andAppeals/Review S.No. Appointing Authority Authority competent to impose penalties AuthorityPenalty Appellate Authority Reviewing Authority

4. Group 'A'

(i) Officers below the level of

Managers Managing Director Managing Director all Executive Committee Board of Directors (ii) Officers of the level of Managers and above (posts with the scale of pay of ri500- 1800 and above) Board of Directors Board of Directors all Board of Directors Board of Directors

6. In relation to the charge sheet dated March 03, 2004 where the objections are thatthe article ofcharges have not been framed by the Board ofDirector but only the Managing Director it would be relevantto note that in the minutes of the meeting dated April 19, 2004 this power was specifically delegatedto the Managing Director as permissible under Section LPA Nos.377/2013&387/2013 Page5of12 7(5)ofthe Warehousing Corporation Act,1962(in short'the Act')which reads as under: 7.(1) The board ofdirectors referred to in section 6shall consistofthefollowing,namely:- (a) six directors to be nominated by the Central Government; (b) one director to be nominated by the National Co operative Development Corporation established under the National Co-operative Development Corporation Act 1962(26of1962); (c ) one director to be nominated by theStateBank; (d)one director to be elected by otherscheduled banks; (e)one director to be elected by co-operativesocieties; (f) one director to be elected by insurance companies, investmenttrusts andotherfinancialinstitutions, recognised associations andcompanies dealing in agriculturalproduce or notifiedcommodities; (g) a managing director, appointed by the Central Governmentin consultation with the directors referred to in clauses (a) to (f): Provided that the three directors to be elected under clauses (d), (e) and (f) may,for the first constitution ofthe board ofdirectors, be nominated by the Central Government in such manner as to give representation to each class of institutions (whether they have become shareholders of the Corporation or not) referred to in those clauses, but a director so nominated shall hold office only until he is replaced by a director elected as provided in that clause, and the director so elected shall hold office onlyfor so long as the director replaced wouldhave heldoffice had he notbeen replaced. LPA Nos.377/2013 387/2013 Page6of12 (2) The directors referred to in clauses (d), (e) and (f) of subsection(1)shall be electedin theprescribed manner. (3)If within theperiodprescribed in this behalf or within suchfurther period as the Central Government may allow, the institutions referred to in clause (d) or clause (e) or clause (f) ofsubsection (1)fail to elect a director, the Central Government may nominate a director to fill the vacancy. (4) The board of directors shall have a Chairman and a Vice Chairman who shall be appointed by the Central Governmentfrom among the directors. (5)The manasinsdirectorshall- (a) exercise such powers and perform such duties as the board ofdirectors or the Central Warehousins Corporation may entrustor dele2ate to him:and (b) receive such salary and allowances as the Central Warehousing Corporation may, with the approval of the Central Government,fix. (6) The directors ofthe Central Warehousing Corporation other than the managing director shall be entitled to receive by way of remuneration such sums as the Central Warehousing Corporation may, with the approval of the Central Government,fix: Provided that no official director shall be entitled to receive any remuneration other than the allowances, if any, admissible to him under the rules regulating his conditions ofservice. (7) The term ofoffice of and the manner offilling casual vacancies among, the directors shall be such as may be prescribed." LPA Nos.377/2013&387/2013 ^ 'V~\

7. Since Section 7(5)ofthe Act permits the Board of Directors or for that matter even the CWC to entrust or delegate to him any power or to perform any duties, it was competent to the Board of Directors to have delegated the duty offraming the charge sheet to the Managing Director as resolved in the meeting dated February 19, 2004, extracts whereof are reproduced as under: "Confidential MINUTES OF THE BOARD MEETING DATED 19.2.2004 ADDL.CONFIDENTIAL AGENDA ITEMNO.1 Conversion/Purchase ofLWBs from M/s Weishwell India Limited, Chandisarh The BOD discussed the Agenda in detail on thefirst stage advice tendered by the CVC vide their letter dated 18.11.2003 wherein considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Commission has advised initiation of Major Penalty Proceedings against Shri Malkhan Singh, GM, Shri S.C.Batra, Secy, (the then Manager (Purchase), Smt.S.Venugopal, Manager (Publicity) (the then Manager (Purchase) and Shri S.N.Gulati, EE and issue of recordable warning to Shri S.K.Tandon, DM(G)and Shri Mahavir Krishnan, DM(G). The BOD also considered the representation made by Shri Batra vide his confidentialletter dated 7.1.04 on thesubject. The BOD observed that Shri Malkhan Singh, GM i/c and Shri S.N.Gulati, EE have since retiredfrom the service of the Corporation in the meantime and no action could, therefore, be taken against them. After detailed discussion, the BOD decided to accept the advice ofthe CVC in respect of the remaining officials to initiate major penalty proceedings against Shri S.C.Batra, Secy, (the then Manager (Purchase) and Smt.S.Venugopal, Manager (Publicity) (the then Manager (Purchase) and to issue LPA Nos.377/2013&387/2013 Page8of12 recordable warning to Shri S.K.Tandon, DM(G)and Shri Mahavir Krishnan,DM(G). The BOD also authorised the MD to finalise the Charge Sheets and issue necessary communication on its behalf. Since senior officers ofthe Corporation are involved, the BOD also decided to request the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution to nominate an officerfor appointment as 10 and to request the JS (Storage) to move the Ministry immediate for necessary action in this regard pending circulation ofminutes. The BOD also authorised the MD to appointPOfrom amongstthe officers ofthe Corporation."

8. Though we do notneed to deal any further into this aspectfinding that the Board ofDirectors were within their authority to delegate the functions to the Managing Director which they did in terms ofSection 7(5)ofthe Act as noted above however, it would be appropriate to note that though the 'learned counsel for the appellant urged that this is the only ground strenuously before this Court as well as before the learned Single Judge the pleadings inthe writpetition are totally bereftofthis contention.