JUDGMENT
Devinder Gupta, J.
(1) In this petition preferred on 14.8.1995 under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order of suspension annexure R-l dated 18.7.1995 and the charge sheet annexure P-2 dated 3.8.1995. On 4.1.1996 Rule D.B. was issued and the petition was directed to be posted for hearing.
(2) At the very outset.it may be noticed that though the petitioner had also prayed for quashing of the order of suspension but during course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner confined his submissions only to the legality and validity of the charge sheet annexure P-2 and that also on the ground that the same has not been framed and issued by the Competent Authority. Thus, the challenge now is only to the charge sheet annexure P-2. It was urged that the General Manager or the Additional General Manager (Administration) of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (for short ‘DESU’) have no disciplinary powers to issue charge sheet annexure P-2 to the petitioner, who is a class ‘A’ officer and the same is in violation of Regulation 5(b) and 7 of Desu (DMC) Service Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Service Regulations’) read with Section 95 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and action, if any, for issuing charge sheet could be taken only by respondent No.3 (Delhi Electric Supply Committee). Thus, the memorandum of charges annexure P-2 framed and served by the Additional General Manager (Admn.) is void and without jurisdiction.
(3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that “Disciplinary Authority” has been defined in Regulation 2(c), as amended by Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (Municipal Corporation of Delhi) Service (Control and Appeal) (Amendment) Regulations, 1984 (for short ‘Amended Regulations’) as: “2(C)’Disciplinary Authority’ in relation to imposition of a penalty on a Municipal Officer or other Municipal Employee means the authority competent to impose on him any of the penalty specified under Regulation 5”
(4) Regulation 5 deals with the type of penalties, which may be imposed on an officer or other employee. The same have been classified under two different headings as “Minor penalties” and “Major penalties”. Clause (a) of Regulation 5 enumerates the ‘minor penalties’ whereas Clause (b) enumerates the ‘major penalties’. Regulation prescribes a different procedure to be followed for imposition of minor and major penalties. Regulation 7 deals with the procedure which is to be followed, when major penalties, are to be imposed and whereas the procedure to be followed while imposing minor penalties is prescribed in Regulation 8. Regulation 7 refers to the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, which are mentioned in the Schedule appended to the Regulations. For category A post, to which admittedly the petitioner belongs, Delhi Electric Supply Committee, respondent No.3 is the authority mentioned in the Schedule as the authority competent to impose all penalties whereas Additional General Manager is also mentioned as the authority competent to impose all penalties except that of removal/reduction in rank/dismissal.
(5) It is contended that the memorandum accompanying charge sheet annexure P-2 dated 3.8.1995, served upon the petitioner by the Additional General Manager (Admn.) states that the allegations on which the inquiry under Regulation 5(b) and 7 of the Service Regulations is proposed to be held against the petitioner are set out in the enclosed statement of allegations and the charges framed on the basis of the said allegations are specified in the enclosed statement of charges. Thus, the intention of respondents 2 & 4 is clear from memorandum annexure P-2 that it was proposed to initiate an enquiry against the petitioner under regulation 5(b) & 7. Regulation 5(b) classifies major penalties for which procedure prescribed to be followed is under Regulation 7. Additional General Manager (Admn.) is not the disciplinary authority or authority competent to impose major penalty. The authority competent is the Delhi Electric Supply Committee which alone has the power, competence and jurisdiction to frame charges, inquire thereupon and pass orders. Reference has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the two decisions of this Court, first being Municipal Corporation of Delhi V. Murari Lal and others, Lpa 93/81 decided on 29.7.1985 and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. 0m Parkash Sharma, 1989 (1) Delhi Lawyer 199, It is also contended that since authority framing charges, on the basis of the allegations on which inquiry is proposed to be held is not the competent authority and lacks inherent jurisdiction, therefore, there is no bar in the petitioner approaching the Court at the threshhold, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Chief of Army Staff and others v. Major Dharam Pal Kukrety, and Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana and others, .
(6) On behalf of the respondents Dr. Singhvi contended that the Delhi Electric Supply Committee is the authority competent to impose all penalties – whether the same be minor, or major whereas the Additional General Manager also is specified in the Schedule as the authority competent to impose all penalties except the penalty of removal/reduction in rank/dismissal. Since the Additional General Manager is also an authority competent to impose on the petitioner any of the penalties specified in Regulation 5 (may be only those as are classified under clause (a) of Regulation 5), therefore, the said authority has to be treated as an authority competent for the purposes of initiation of disciplinary proceedings, namely, framing of charge etc. It was further contended that at the stage when there is only an initiation of disciplinary proceedings it cannot be postulated whether there will be any punishment at all or even if there is going to be any punishment that what particular penalty is likely to be imposed. Petition at this stage is pre-mature. Petitioner cannot at this stage visualise and on an hypothetical issue challenge the jurisdiction of the Additional General Manager in issuing the charge sheet, when only initial step has been set in motion and stage has not reached of imposing punishment. Reliance has been placed by Dr. Singhvi upon decision of the Supreme Court in D.S. Garewal v. The State of Punjab and another and a decision of the learned single judge of this Court in Desu Engineers Association and another v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others 1993 Lab.I.C. 1093.
(7) Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to distinguish the decision in Garewal’s case (supra) contending that the same cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case since the said decision was rendered with respect to All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 which provide for imposition of different penalties – minor as well as major – as specified in Rule 3 of the said Rules for which under Clause (b) of Rule 4 the Government under whom the member of Service has been serving at the time of commission of the impugned act alone has been specified to be the authority competent to institute the disciplinary proceedings, subject to sub rule (2) to impose upon him such penalty specified in Rule 3 as it thinks fit and sub rule (2) states that the penalty of dismissal, removal and compulsory retirement shall not be imposed except by an order of the Central Government. It is contended that in so far as the Service Regulations in question are concerned there are two different sets of authorities contemplated for imposing penalties, namely, Delhi Electric Supply Committee and the Additional General Manager. Delhi Electric Supply Committee can impose all penalties whereas Additional General Manager can impose all penalties except reduction in rank or removal or dismissal, namely, all penalties except major penalties and when against the petitioner the intention has been spelt out in annexure P-2 to initiate disciplinary proceedings under clause (b) of Regulation 5 read with Regulation 7 in that case Delhi Electric Supply Committee alone would be competent authority having jurisdiction to initiate proceedings.
(8) We have considered the submissions made by the respective counsel and have also gone through the affidavits exchanged amongst parties.
(9) There can be no manner of doubt that the Additional General Manager is also an authority, specified in the Schedule, to be an authority competent enough .to impose all penalties on a person falling in Category ‘A’ posts except major penalties. Read in conjunction with Regulation 6 and 2(c) of the Service Regulations, the Additional General Manager is one of the disciplinary authorities. It is not disputed that the Additional General Manager is also the disciplinary authority qua the petitioner and would be competent to impose minor penalty upon him. The definition of ‘disciplinary authority’ does bring in its ambit an authority competent to impose upon the delinquent any of the penalties specified under Regulation 5. The Additional General Manager is the authority competent to impose upon the petitioner penalties specified under Clause (a) of Regulation 5. Clause (c) of Regulation 2 does not make any distinction in major or minor penalties. What it says is that the authority competent to impose any of the penalties specified under Regulation 5 would be the Disciplinary Authority. At this stage it cannot be said that the Additional General Manager will not be a disciplinary authority qua the petitioner for the purpose of imposing any of the penalties specified in Regulation 5. At this stage it is not to be seen that ultimately what penalty is likely to be imposed upon the delinquent. It will be at the time of imposing the penalty that the power has to be exercised by the competent authority, as is specified in the Schedule. It is for the disciplinary authority – whether it will be Delhi Electric Supply Committee or the Additional General Manager – who may frame definite charges on the basis of the allegations on which inquiry is proposed to be held. Service Regulation does not contemplate that any opinion has to be formed at this stage when charges alone are framed as to what penalty ultimately is to be imposed upon the delinquent. In case inquiry is held as per the procedure prescribed under Regulation 7 on the basis of the charges framed, there can be no bar and the Service Regulations do not prohibit that minor penalty cannot be imposed. For this reason alone even in case in the memorandum, which has been issued to the petitioner, it is stated that it is proposed to hold an inquiry under Regulation 5(b), it cannot be inferred or assumed that the same is only for the purposes of imposition of only major penalty. May be that on completion of inquiry the petitioner may be exonerated of all the charges or that no penalty at all is imposed. It is not disputed rather it has frankly been conceded that for imposition of minor penalty. Additional General Manager is competent enough to initiate disciplinary proceedings for which elaborate procedure as prescribed in Regulation 7 need not be followed. There is also no bar that for imposing minor penalty procedure under Regulation 7 may be followed.
(10) In Garewal’s case (supra) it was held that it cannot be postulated at the very outset of the inquiry whether there would be any punishment at all and even if there is going to be punishment, what particular punishment out of 7 mentioned in Rule 3 would be imposed. The Service Regulations applicable to the Indian Administrative Service, namely. All India (Discipline and Appeal) Service Rules, 1955 vis-a-vis Service Regulations in question will not make any difference, in view of the definition of the disciplinary authority contained in Clause 2(c). Definition of disciplinary authority in Clause 2(c) does bring in Additional General Manager within the ambit of disciplinary authority for all purposes except for imposing penalty. It is only at that stage that distinction has to be kept in mind, since major penalty cannot be imposed by the Additional General Manager, the same can only be imposed by Delhi Electric Supply Committee.
(11) The two decisions of this Court, namely, Murari Lal and 0m Parkash Sharma (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not relevant at all with respect to the controversy, which has arisen for decision and otherwise also the same are judgments per incuriam, in as much as the same have not taken notice of the dictum of the decision of the Supreme Court in Garewal’s case (supra). Moreover, in Murari Lal and 0m Parkash Sharma cases (supra) the question had arisen about the competence of the authority in passing the order of punishment and in that relation observations were made as regards the authority competent to hold inquiry, which observations in view of Gare wals case (supra) would not be correct.
(12) In Murari Lal’s case appointment had been made by the Commissioner, who alone was competent to impose the penalty of dismissal from service and it was held that the Charge Sheet framed by the Deputy Commissioner, who was not a disciplinary authority, could not have formed the basis on a review by the Commissioner in imposing penalty of dismissal from service. Similarly in the case of Om Parkash Sharma the Commissioner was held to be a person competent to hold inquiry and pass order of punishment being the appointing authority. Both these decisions relate to the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1959 and were rendered without noticing the decision of apex court in Garewal’s case are of no help for deciding the controversy, which has arisen in the instant case, in which objection has been taken at the initial stage alone when the stage .of imposing penalty has not yet reached.
(13) Regulation 2(c), as noticed above, makes the Additional General Manager as one of the disciplinary authorities, who under Service Regulations is also competent enough to impose minor penalties, namely, penalties referred to in Regulation 5. May be that he may not be competent to impose all penalties but he is competent to impose some of the penalties referred to in Regulation 5, namely, those classified under clause (a) of Regulation 5. Therefore, initiation of disciplinary proceedings by him by framing and serving the charges upon the petitioner cannot be said to be wholly without jurisdiction. At this stage, we are not inclined to interfere and quash the charge sheet merely on the ground that the same has been issued by the Additional General Manager or that he would have no jurisdiction to impose major penalty since.it is not disputed that he is one of the authorities out of two to be competent enough to impose minor penalties upon the petitioner.
(14) Dismissed.