# THE MANAGEMENT OF D.T.U v. SHRI B. B. L. HAJELAY & ANR

- **Citation:** [1973] 2 S.C.R. 114
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1972-09-06
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1518 of 1971
- **Bench:** J. M. Shelat, D. G. Palekar, S. N. Dwivedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/the-management-of-d-t-u-v-shri-b-b-l-hajelay-anr-5765
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Disciplinary proceedings-Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957Ss. 92, 95(1) and proviso, 491 and 504-Remova/ by of]icer subordinate
to the appointing authority-Effect of delegation of functions by the
appointing ahthority-Subordinatwn ~ of rank
and
not
fun<·rionsProtection cannot be de~royed by the concept of agency.
By the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 the Delhi Road
Transport Authority Act, 1950, was repealed and the functions of the
Authority were taken over by the Corporation. Every employee of the
Authority stood transferred to and became an employee of the Corporation from January 1958.
Under s. 92 of the Corporation Act the power of appointing municipal
officers and other municipal employees to posts carrying
a (minimum
monthly salary of Rs. 350/_ vest in the General Manager (Transport).
Section 95(1) dealing with disciplinary matters provides
that
every
officer or other employee shall be liable to be punished by such authority
as may be prescribed by regulations.
By the proviso to sub .. ection ( 1)
of s. 95 no officer or employee shall be reduced in rank, compulsorily
retired, i:emoved or dismissed by any authority subordinate to that by
which he was appointed.
Section 491 read with
504
empowers
the
General Manager (Transport) to direct by order that any power conferred or any duty imposed on him by or under the Act shall be exercised and performed also by any municipal officer specified
in
the
order.
Respondent No. 2 was originally employed as a driver in the Delhi
Transport Authority.
He became an employee of the Corporation from
January 1958.
The minimum monthly salary drawn by him was less
than Rs. 350/-.
After a disciplinary enquiry the
Assistant
General
Manager remoyed the respondent from service with effect from May
16, 1963.
The La.hour Court, in an application under s. 33(2) (b)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, did not grant approval of the action
on the ground that the General Manager alone could have removed him
from service.
The High Court confirmed this view.
It was common
ground that the General Manager (Transport) had by order issued in
1961 delegated his power to the Assistant General Manager to appoint
and consequently, to remove from service a driver lilce respondent
No. 2.
In the appeal to this Court it was contended by the appellant
Undertaking that the respondent was originally employed by the Mana.ger
of the Road 'Transport Authority constituted under the 1950 Act and
on the repeal of that Act and the take over of the authority by the Corporation any officer of the appellant Undertaking competent to appoint or
remove a driver was entitled to remove him from service; tba.t the
Assistant General Manager of the Undertaking could not be described
as an authority subordinate to the Manager of the Delhi Road Transport
Authority; and that in 2"1y event the Assistant General Manager had be·
come an agent Qf the General Manager.
Dismissing the appeal,
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
ff
A
B
' c
D
E
MANAGEMENT D.T.U. v. B.B.L. HAJELAY (Palekar, J.)
115
HELD : (i) Respondent No. 2 at the time of his absorption in
January 1958 would be deemed to have been appointed under s. 92(1)
(b) which would mean that he was appointed by the General Manager
(Transport).
Being so, appointed, no subordinate of bis including the
Assistant General Manager would be entitled to remove him in view
of s. 95 (I) proviso.
The only consequence of the delegation of functions of the General Manager to the Assistant General Manager would
be that if after 1961 the Assistant General Manager makes the appointment of a driver like respondent No. 2 he would no doubt be entitled
to remove him from service. [1180-E)
(ii) A protection which is given to an employee bv statute cannot
be nullified by rules and regulations r.uthorised by the statute itse1'f. If the
Corporation itself could.not have by a regulation destroyed the. protection
given by the statute to respondent No. 2, it would be inappropriate to say
that General Manager by an order delc~ating

## Text

114
THE MANAGEMENT OF D.T.U.
v.
SHRI B. B. L. HAJELAY & ANR.
September 6, 1972
[J. M. SHELAT, D. G. PALEKAR AND S. N. DWIVEDI, JJ.]
Disciplinary proceedings-Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957Ss. 92, 95(1) and proviso, 491 and 504-Remova/ by of]icer subordinate
to the appointing authority-Effect of delegation of functions by the
appointing ahthority-Subordinatwn ~ of rank
and
not
fun<·rionsProtection cannot be de~royed by the concept of agency.
By the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 the Delhi Road
Transport Authority Act, 1950, was repealed and the functions of the
Authority were taken over by the Corporation. Every employee of the
Authority stood transferred to and became an employee of the Corporation from January 1958.
Under s. 92 of the Corporation Act the power of appointing municipal
officers and other municipal employees to posts carrying
a (minimum
monthly salary of Rs. 350/_ vest in the General Manager (Transport).
Section 95(1) dealing with disciplinary matters provides
that
every
officer or other employee shall be liable to be punished by such authority
as may be prescribed by regulations.
By the proviso to sub .. ection ( 1)
of s. 95 no officer or employee shall be reduced in rank, compulsorily
retired, i:emoved or dismissed by any authority subordinate to that by
which he was appointed.
Section 491 read with
504
empowers
the
General Manager (Transport) to direct by order that any power conferred or any duty imposed on him by or under the Act shall be exercised and performed also by any municipal officer specified
in
the
order.
Respondent No. 2 was originally employed as a driver in the Delhi
Transport Authority.
He became an employee of the Corporation from
January 1958.
The minimum monthly salary drawn by him was less
than Rs. 350/-.
After a disciplinary enquiry the
Assistant
General
Manager remoyed the respondent from service with effect from May
16, 1963.
The La.hour Court, in an application under s. 33(2) (b)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, did not grant approval of the action
on the ground that the General Manager alone could have removed him
from service.
The High Court confirmed this view.
It was common
ground that the General Manager (Transport) had by order issued in
1961 delegated his power to the Assistant General Manager to appoint
and consequently, to remove from service a driver lilce respondent
No. 2.
In the appeal to this Court it was contended by the appellant
Undertaking that the respondent was originally employed by the Mana.ger
of the Road 'Transport Authority constituted under the 1950 Act and
on the repeal of that Act and the take over of the authority by the Corporation any officer of the appellant Undertaking competent to appoint or
remove a driver was entitled to remove him from service; tba.t the
Assistant General Manager of the Undertaking could not be described
as an authority subordinate to the Manager of the Delhi Road Transport
Authority; and that in 2"1y event the Assistant General Manager had be·
come an agent Qf the General Manager.
Dismissing the appeal,
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
ff
A
B
' c
D
E
MANAGEMENT D.T.U. v. B.B.L. HAJELAY (Palekar, J.)
115
HELD : (i) Respondent No. 2 at the time of his absorption in
January 1958 would be deemed to have been appointed under s. 92(1)
(b) which would mean that he was appointed by the General Manager
(Transport).
Being so, appointed, no subordinate of bis including the
Assistant General Manager would be entitled to remove him in view
of s. 95 (I) proviso.
The only consequence of the delegation of functions of the General Manager to the Assistant General Manager would
be that if after 1961 the Assistant General Manager makes the appointment of a driver like respondent No. 2 he would no doubt be entitled
to remove him from service. [1180-E)
(ii) A protection which is given to an employee bv statute cannot
be nullified by rules and regulations r.uthorised by the statute itse1'f. If the
Corporation itself could.not have by a regulation destroyed the. protection
given by the statute to respondent No. 2, it would be inappropriate to say
that General Manager by an order delc~ating his functions to the Assistant
GenereJ Manager under s. 491 read with S94 the Corporation Act could
destroy the protection. The true position in law is that while sections 491
and S04 ,read together authoriml the General Manager (Transport) to
delegate his powers and functions to a subordinate they did' not authorise
delegation of his rank. What is involved in matters of appointment and
removal is the status and rank of the employee and the status and rank
of the authority taking· action.
When the proviso to sub-section (I)
of s. 95 says that an officer and an employee shall not be dismissed by
anv authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed the subordination is of tank and not functions. [12\)D·H]
R. T. Rangachari v. Secr~:ary of State, 64 Indian Appoals, 40, referred to.
It is implicit in the statutory prohibition debarring removal by a
lesser authority, that the appointing authority
ha,
to personally apply
its n1ind to the question of removal and cannot de1e~ate such a function.
The protection provided cannot he destroyed by irllporting concepts of
agency. [121C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1518 of
1971.
F
Appeal by special leave from the ·judgment and order dated
G
H
the 21st January 1971 of' the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 719 of 1969.
M. C. Chag/a, and S. K. Dho/akia, for the appellant.
R. K. P. Shankardass, D. N. Vohra, H .. K, Puri and S. K.
Dhingra, for respondent No. 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PALEKAR, J.
This is an appeal from the judgment and
Order dated January 21, 1971 of the Delhi High Court in Civil
Writ Petition No. 719/1969.
~ Re.spondent no., 2 Ved Prakash was orig~nally employed as a
Dnver m the Delhi Road Transport Authonty which had been
constituted under the Delhi Road Transport Authority Act, 1950.
116
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973) 2 s.c:a.
Thr; Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 came into force in A
January, 1958. By section 516(1)(a) of the Corporation Act,
the Delhi Road Transport Authority Act, 1950, stood repealed
and in virtue of several other sections of the Corporation Act the
functions of the Delhi Road Transport Authority were taken over
by the Corporation.
Under section 511 every officer and
employee of the Transport Authority stood transferred to and
B
berome an officer and employee of the Corporation. Thus respondent no. 2 became an employee of the Corporation from
January, 1958.
A disciplinary enquiry was started against respondent no. 2
by the Assistant General Manager (Transport) in 1962 and the
Assistant General Manager decided to remove responden~ no. 2
from service with effect from 16-5-1963. At that time an Industrial dispute was pending before respondent no. 1, the Presiding
Ofliccr of the Labour Court, and hence an application was made
under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act for approval of the proposed action of removal of respondent no. 2 from
service.
Respondent no. 1 djd not approve of the action on the
ground that the Order for removal was made by the Assistant
General Manager and not the General Manager who alone could
have removed him from service.
That order was challenged in
the High Court which, however, agreed with the view (aken by
respondent no. I. Hence the present appe~l.
The short point with which we are concerned is whether the
Assistant' General Manager of the Delhi Transport Undertaking
of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was a competent authority
to remove respondent no. 2 from service:
I c
D
E
There is no dispute that under section 511 (1) of the CorpoF
ration Act, respondent no. 2 became an employee of the Corporation from January, 1958.
(By reason of section 516(2)(a)
his appointment continued in foree and was deemed to have been
made under the provisions of the Corporation Act). Section 92
which comes under Chapter VI of the Corporation Act dealing
with Municipal officers and other Municipal employees, so far as
is relevant, is as follows :
"92(1) Sub.iect to the provisions of section 89 the
powf'r of appointing municipal officers and other municipal employees, whether temporary or permanent, ....
(b) to posts carrying a minimum monthly salary
(exclusive of allowance~) of less than three hundred
and fifty runees •h•ll vest in .......... the General
Manager (Transport)."
G
H
B
c
D
E
F
G
MANAGEMENT D.T.U. v. B.B.L. HAJELAY (Palekar, J.)
117
The minimum monthly salary of respondent no. 2 was less than
Rs. 350/- and hence the appropriate authority under the Corporation Act to appoint respondent no. 2 would be the General
Man<iger (Transport).
Section 95 deals with disciplinary actions against municipal
officers and employees. Sub-section 6 provides "every municipal
officer or other municipal employee shall be liable to have his
increments or promotion withheld or to be censured, reduced in
rank, compulsorily retired, removed or dismissed for any breach
of any departmental regulations or of discipline or· for carelessness, unfitness, neglect of duty or other misconduct by such
authority as may be prescribed by regulations." The first proviso
to the above sub-section reads "Provided that no such officer or
other employee as aforesaid ,shall be reduced ln rank, compulsorily
retired, removed or dismissed by any authority subordinate to that
by which he was appointed."
In view of the proviso referred to above it was contended on
behalf of respondent no. 2 that he cannot be removed by any
authority subordinate to the General Manager (Tran&port) and
since the. Assistant General Manager was a subordinate of the
General Manager, the Order of removal was unauthorised and
illegal.
That contention has been upheld by the High Court.
Two more provisions of the Corporation Act have to be
noticed at this stage.
They are sections 491 and 504 in Chapter XXV entitled "Miscellaneous".
Section 491 is as follows:
"The Commissioner may by order direct that any
power conferred or any duty imposed on. him by or
under this Act shall, in such circumstances and under
such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the
order, be exercised and performed also by any riluniciJlal officer or other municipal employee specified in the
-order."
Section 504 so far as is relevant is as follows :
"Save as expressly provided in. this Act and unless
the context otherwise requires,-
Any reference in this Act to the Commisioner. . ..
. . . . . . . . . . . . shall be construed.
;ii) in relation to any matter pertaining to the Delhi
Transport Undertaking,
as
a reference ..... to the
General Manager (Transport) .......... "
B
Reading the&e two provisions together one sees that the General Manager (Transport) is entitled by order .to direct that any
power conferred or any duty imposed on him by or under the
Act shall be exercised and performed also by any municipal
118
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] 2 s.c.R.
officer or other municipal employee specified in the. order. It is
common ground that the General Manager (Transport) has by
an order issued in 1961 delegated his power to the Assistant
General Manager to appoint and, consequently, to remove from
service a driver like respondent no. 2.
A
Mr. Chagla, appearing on behalf of the appellant Undertaking,
B
contended that respondent no. 2 hacl been actually appointed by
the Manager of the Delhi Road Transport Authotity constituted
under the Delhi Road Transport Authority Act, 1950 and on the
repeal of that Act and the take over of the Authority by the Corporation, any officer of the appellant Undertaking, competent to
appoint or remove a driver, was entitled to remove him from
C
service.
The Assistant General Manager of the
Undertaking
could not be described as subordinate to the Manager of the Delhi
Road Transport Authority because factually he was not. Therefore, he contended, the provision 'that he shall not be removed
by the authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed'
found in section 95 of the Corporation Act was inapplicable. In
J)
our opinion, the contention is not well founded.
The proviso to
section 95 sub-section ( 1) gives protection to every officer and
employee of the Undertaking that he may not be removed or dismissed from service by an authority subordinate to that by w:uch
he was appointed. It may be that in 1961 the functions of the
Geaer.al Manager (Transport) had been delegated to the AssisE
tant General Manager.
The only consequence is that if after
1961 the Assistant General Manager makes the appointment of
a driver like respondent no. 2, he would no doubt be entitled to
remove him from service.
But so far as respondent no. 2 is concerned his individual position will have to be determined with
reference to the time when he was absorbed in Corporation Service.
That was in January, 1958. Section 516 while repealing
F
the Delhi Road Transport Authority Act, 1950 by clause (a) of
sub-section ( 1) protects the appointments made under that Act.
Sub-section 2 (a) provides "Notwithstanding the
provisions of
sub-section (1) of this section ...... , . . (a) any appointment
.. .. . .. .. .. . made . . . .. .. . . . .. and in force immediately
before the establishment of the Corporation, shall, in so far as it
G
is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, continue in
force and be deemed to have been made . . . . . . . . . . under the
provisions of this Act, unless and until it is superseded by any
appointment . . . . . . . . . . . . made under the said
provisions."
Since under section 92( 1) ( b) already referred to the power of
appointing municipal employees to posts carrying a minimum
H
monthly salary of Rs. 350/- vested in the General Managei:.
(Transport), Respondent no. 2, at the time of his absorption in
January, 1958 would be deemed to have been appointed under
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
MANAGEMENT D.T.U. v. B.B.L. HAJELAY (Palekar, J.)
119
I
section 92(l)(b) which would mean that.he was appointed by
the General Manager (Transport).
Being so appointed, no subordinate of his including the Assistant General Manager (Transport) would be entitled to remove hini. from service in view of
section 95 ( 1) proviso.
Section 95 ('l) dealing with disciplinary action against municipal officers and employees specifically provides that every
officer or other municipal employee shall be liable to be punished
in the several ways referred to in that section by such authority
as may be prescribed by regulations.
The definition of the word
'regulation' given in clause 48 of section ( 2)
is
as follows :
"Regulation" means regulation made by the Corporation under
this Act by notification in the official gazette. In other words,
the power of making regulations is vested in the Corporation and
it is open to the Corporation to prescribe by regulation who
would be the authority to punish any municipal officer or employee for his delinquency.
Such a regulation may provide. that an
employee of the status of respondent no. 2 can be removed, for
example, by the Assistant General Manager.
And yet by virtue
of the proviso to that sub-section respondent no. 2 would be protected against any such action of the Assistant General Manager
because his appointing authority was the General Manager and
the Assistant General Manager was his subordinate.
A similar
situation had arisen in R. T. Rangachari v. Secretary of State(1).
'.The appellant Rangachari had been appointed by the Inspector
General of Police but his dismissal was ordered in 1928 by an
official lower in rank than the Inspector General.
Rangachari
claimed protection under section 96(b) of the Government of
India Act, 1919 which so far as we are concerned was as follows:
"Sub-section ( 1) Subject to the provisions of this
Act and the rules made thereunder every person in the
Civil Service of the Crown in India holds office during
his Majesty's pleasure and may be employed in any
manner required by a proper authority within the. scope
of his duty but no person in that service may be dismissed by any authority subordinate to that bv which
he was appointed."
Since rules had been framed by which the power of dismissal had
been delegated by the Inspector General of Police to a subordinate authority it was contended, though with certain amount of
hesitation, that the dismissal of Rangachari was proper. Lord
Roche delivering the judgment in the case observed "The courts
below held that the power of dismissal was in fact delegated and
(ll M Indian Appeals. 40.
120
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973) 2 s.c.R.
was lawfully delegated to the person who purported to exercise
it.
Counsel for the respondent candidly expressed a doubt as to
the possibility of maintaining this view and indeed it is manifest
that if power to delegate this power could be taken under the
rules, it would wipeout a proviso and destroy a protection contained not in the rules but in the section itself.
Their Lordships
are clearly of opinion ·that the dismissal purporting to be thus
ordered in February was by reason of its origin pad and inoperative.
It is manifest that the stipulation or proviso as· to dismissal
is itself of statutory force and stands on a footing quite other
than any matters of rule which are of infinite variety and can be
changed from time to time.
It is plainly necessary that this
statutory safeguard should be observed with the utmost care and
that a deprivation of pension based upon a dismissal purporting
to be made by an official who is prohibited by statute from making
it rests upon an illegal and improper foundation."
It is, therefore, clear that a protection which is given to an
employee by the statute cannot be nullified by rules and regulations authorised by the statute itself. In other words, any regulation made by the Corporation which would have authorised the
Assistant General Manager to remove respondent no. 2 from service would have been inoperative qua respondent no. 2, as his
appointing authority was the General Manager (Transport). The
question now is whether, if the Corporation itself by any regulation could not have destroyed the above protection given by the
statute to respondent no. 2, it would be appropriate to say that
the General Manager by an order delegating his functions to the
Assistant General Manager under sections 491 r/w 504 of the
Corporation Act could destroy the protection.
Since the General
Manager (Transport) is an officer of the Corporation and subordinate to the Corporation, it will amount to saying that what the
Corporation could not do by a regulation could be done by an
officer of the Corporation by merely delegating his functions to
the Assistant General Manager. The position would look ridi·
culous.
The true position in law is that while sections 491
&
504 read together authorised the General Manager (Transport)
to delegate his powers and functions to a subordinate, they did
not authorise delegation of his rank.
What is involved in matters
of appointment and removal is the status and rank of the employee and the status and rank of the authority taking a.ction.
When
the proviso to sub-section ( 1) of section 95 says that an officer
and a..'l employee shall not be dismissed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed the subordination is of
rank and not of functions.
The proviso places an embargo on
any subordinate of the appointing authority from removing or
dismissing an employee from service. and, therefore, the High
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
(
I
MANAGEMENT D.T.U. v. B.B.L. HAJELAY (Palekar, J.)
121
Court was right in holding in the present case that the removal of
respondent no. 2 by the Assistant General Manager (Transport)
was illegal.
Mr. Chagla then contended that by reason of the delegation,
the Assistant Gerieral Manager had become an agent of the
General Manager and the act of the Assistant General Manager
must be deemed to be the act of the General Manager himself.
We are not concerned here with the. law of agency. It is implicit in the statutory prohibition debarring removal by a lesser
authority, that the appointing authority has to personally apply
its mind to the question of removal nad cannot delegate such a
function.
Since the authority which can remove an employee is
the appointing authority or its superior in office, the protection
thus provided cannot be destroyed by importing concepts of
agency.
In the result the aDneal fails and is dismissed with costs.
K.B.N.
Appeal dismissed.