A Nos
456 and 7 in Civil Appeal Nos
1401  1402 of 1990
From the Judgment and Order dated 2251987 of the Delhi High Court in CWP No 2687 of 1986
Kapil Sibal VB Saharya and RK Khanna for the Appellant
Rajiv Sawhney Sanjay Anand Deepak Kumar Thakur Mrs Ameeta Rathore Kapil Chandra for JB Dadachanji  Co and RK Maheshwari for the Respondents
The following Order of the Court was delivered PUNCHHI J These are applications for directions in Civil Appeal Nos 1401 and 1402 of 1990 decided by us on March 13 1990
For facility of fact situation resort be had to our judgment dated March 13 1990
Direction given by to the DDA was meaningful and clear that it shall grant to the Delhi Cloth Mills conditional approval subject to the removal of the objections enumerated and extracted in the judgment as raised or such of them as were valid and tenable in law after the Delhi Cloth Mills is heard by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi the author of the objections and which the DDA had adopted and the matter to be formalised forthwith by the DDA and the authorities connected therewith within a time frame
This has reportedly met with hurdles necessitating these applications
The objections may broadly be divided in three parts i objections which are within the exclusive domain of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi 593 ii objections which are exclusively within the domain of the DDA and iii objections which are lendingly common to both the DDA and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi overseeing and safeguarding the interests of each other
And these objections can also be divided as surmountable and insurmountable
The objections to begin with as raised by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and later adopted by the DDA presently requiring smoothening before us relate to those which are within the exclusive domain of the DDA for it is asserted by the applicant Delhi Cloth Mills that the objections relating to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi are not insurmountable and those can for the present be left alone to be tackled by the applicant without the intervention of the Court
For this reason neither any direction is asked at this stage nor is one necessary to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi
The DDA has broadly three objections i To further the resolution of the DDA dated February 1 1983 the Delhi Cloth Mills should file an amended or modified plan so as to conform to the Master Plan of the year 2001 ii Since the matter before the Delhi High Court as also in this Court had proceeded on the assumption that the entire 63 acres of land involved in the re development for flatted factories and residential complex was owned by the Delhi Cloth Mills which assumption was wrong the Delhi Cloth Mills should confine its plan to about 52 acres of land as owned by it as the balance about 11 acres of land is owned by the DDA which is either on varied termed leases or in trespass with the Delhi Cloth Mills
The plan would require rectification accordingly and iii The fact of grant of permission vide resolution of 1 2 1983 did not ipso facto mean that the DDA had given up its rights on lease hold lands in accordance with the terms thereof or the tittle to it or to regularize possession of the trespassed upon land with the Delhi Cloth Mills
594 On that basis it is required of the Delhi Cloth Mills to confine its plans within those 52 acres as owned by it and by a process of reasoning it is hinted that after providing for recreational and other necessary facilities as required by law there hardly would remain any land to further the project
It has been maintained on behalf of the Delhi Cloth Mills that the posture of the DDA is obstructive in nature and a step to flout or undermine the orders of this Court
It has on the other hand been maintained on behalf of the retrenched workers that since the settlement arrived at by them with the Delhi Cloth Mills was beneficial to them in nature as a price for closure of the Mill the posture of the DDA was indirectly against their interests
They have prayed for suitable directions so that the benefits accruing to them by lapse of time may not go dry
At the outset we put it beyond any doubt and re affirm that the DDA stands directed by this Court to grant to the DCM approval even though conditional and the DCM stands impliedly directed and is duty bound to remove the objections as were valid and tenable in law as raised by the DDA within its domain
Having gone thus far there is no retreat of it contemplated
It is further to be understood that this Court had endorsed by means of this directive the already known views of the Delhi High Court towards restoring resolution of the DDA dated February 1 1983 whereby the scheme as given by the Delhi Cloth Mills was approved in terms thereof
And obviously the approval came from the DDA at a time when the Master Plan of the year 1962 was operative and the one of the year 2001 was not existant and if at all existant in an embryonic stage
The law governing the object and the rules and regulations then in vogue and applicable were deemingly kept in view and applied by the DDA in the approval of the scheme
To whittle down the effect of that resolution on the emergence of the new Master Plan of the year 2001 made applicable after the orders of this Court would at the present stage if insisted upon be spelled out as a step to undermine the orders of this Court
Such an objection by the DDA when raised before March 13 1990 the day when we passed judgment was untenable in law and the DDA should have known it before putting such an objection to use
For this reason we repel the first objection of the DDA and require of it to stick to the position as per Master Plan as existing on February 1 1983
This objection is thus surmounted
The second objection of the DDA with regard to the wrong 595 impression of the ownership of the land appears to us to be valid substantially
It is the admitted case of the parties that the scheme pertains to 63 acres of land which the Delhi Cloth Mills while applying for sanction claimed to own and one of the considerations in passing the resolution dated February 1 1983 ex facie was the DDA being impressed by a private entrepreneur coming forward with a scheme with such a large chunk of land
It is significant that nowhere at that stage even remotely or at any stage during the litigation before the Delhi High Court or this Court was the Delhi Cloth Mill s claim of owning 63 acres of land been given a serious thought or refuted or put to proof or testing
One way of looking at it now can be that the Delhi Cloth Mills misled the DDA in that regard and had the DDA known that the Delhi Cloth Mills owned only about 52 acres of land the DDA might have resolved differently
The other view as suggested by the Delhi Cloth Mills is that the DDA of its own should have counter checked the extent of the ownership of the land of the Delhi Cloth Mills at the time of granting sanction
Learned counsel on both sides have dwelt upon this matter a great deal
We cannot assume that by upholding resolution dated February 11983 the Delhi High Court or for that matter this Court had made or acknowledged Delhi Cloth Mills as the owner of 63 acres of land involved in the scheme or that the right of ownership of the DDA over about 11 acres of land stood extinguished by such exercise
The DDA when engaged in examining and sanctioning the proposal was justified on proceedings on the supposition of facts given by the Delhi Cloth Mills as true and in processing the same cannot be said to have surrendered its ownership rights qua land measuring 11 acres
Thus we are clear in arriving at the view that the said resolution cannot trample the right of DDA as owner over about 11 acres of land when the respective leases reserve to the DDA the right of resumption and in leases expiring by efflux of time the option not to renew
The scheme approved must thus of necessity be dented to that effect as the objection of the DDA in that regard and to that extent is valid and tenable
Reservation in that regard appears also to have been made by the Delhi High Court in its judgment in CWP No 1281 of 1985 decided on July 221988
While dealing with possibility of a law and order problem the court relied on the Delhi Cloth Mill s management s affidavit towards granting statutory compensation to the workers as well as its undertaking to pay in some event additional compensation
The Delhi Cloth Mills had in the affidavit stated that the additional compensation shall be payable on expiry of two years from the date the Delhi Cloth Mills is allowed by all the concerned authorities 596 including the DDA and Municipal Corporation of Delhi to redevelop its entire 63 acres of land at Bara Hindu Rao and Krishan Ganj in accordance with the user stipulated therefore under the Master Plan for Delhi dated September 1962
The High Court in judging the stand taken by the delhi Cloth Mills made the following significant observations No assurance is extended by any competent authority to the workmen that the authorities shall not enforce the Master Plan or shall not insist for due compliance of the provisions of the Act and the regulations in the matter of the Mill
It is also doubtful if any one could opt out of the statutory provisions
 These observations make it clear that the DDA cannot be said to have abandoned its right either as a statutory body or that of the lessor of land on leases held by the Delhi Cloth Mills by mere passing of the resolution afore mentioned or correspondingly to have given any right to the workers
We have been given the break up of those leases numbering 10
One of them pertains to 36425 sq
yardsabout 7 acres which is perpetual in nature and is not required to be renewed except that the rent is revisable after every 25 years
The remaining leases are in comparison short durated some of which have expired and others are expiring in the year 2001
The unexpired period of leases is not long enough in the context of the project
besides there is an area which is said to be trespassed upon by the Delhi Cloth Mills
this area under durated leases and trespass totals about 4 acres
the Delhi Cloth Mills cannot be permitted to lay hands on this area as of right to further the scheme
there a common term in each respective lease reserving right to the lessor to determine the lease at any time if the land is required for public purpose in consideration of the land having been demised free of any premium
To involve this four acres of land in the scheme the DCM may have to work it out under a different shade and premise and not from this Court
The objection is thus insurmountable on this plain
So far as the perpetual lease is concerned its purpose covenants for residential cultural and recreational purposes of staff and workers of the lessee and purposes ancillary thereto in accordance with the rules and regulations in force in Delhi under the Municipality Act or any bye laws framed by the lessor
It is further covenanted that for 597 purposes of construction of building the approval of the lessor in writing is a pre condition before the start of the construction and further no alteration or addition in the building as approved by the lessor either externally or internally can be made without first obtaining the permission of the lessor in writing
Besides that if during the period of lease it is certified by the Central Government that the premises are required for the purposes of the Central Government or any other public purpose the lessor shall be entitled to take possession of the land together with all building structures etc
with certain consequences
It is thus plain and evident that even in the case of perpetual lease enormous residual control is left with the lessor who alone can accord permission to construct building for the specified purpose for residential cultural and recreational purpose of the staff and workers of the Mill and purposes ancillary thereto and on frustration of such purpose has the further right to treat the lease to have become void if the land is used for any purpose other than for which the lease was granted not being the purpose subsequently approved by the lessor
Thus unless the DDA grants approval to the change of user as asked and reconstruction the Delhi Cloth Mills has no such deemed right or privilege ignoring the covenants and the terms of the lease
Thus it cannot be suggested that the resolution afore mentioned has the automatic effect of the DDA having granted change of user consciously or impliedly or vesting any right in that regard to the Delhi Cloth Mills
Here as well the DCM would have to work out its plans with the DDA under the terms of the lease without any further mandate from this Court in this regard
This objection also is insurmountable in the presence of the void clause
Yet all is not lost for the Delhi Cloth Mills
It can still steer through its project in its owned 52 acres even though in a truncated from and submit an amended plan
On the other hand its relationship with the DDA being that of a lessee and lessor permits a meaningful dialogue seeking extensions of lease periods and change of permissive user in respect of 11 acres of land
It can make attractive suggestions to the DDA for setting up cultural educational recreational and other facilities etc
at the expense of the Delhi Cloth Mills if the project is to remain of the 63 acre size
It is the case of Delhi Cloth Mills that if it is allowed to involve the said 11 acres of land the project would be better and it is prepared to pay any charges as are known to law to keep it as part of the project of the original size
Be that as it may we are no experts to opine whether a 52 acre project would be more viable or better or a 63 acre one
But since the project has in terms of our order dated March 13 1990 to go on the DDA 598 may if asked examine the suggestions
That is their field and not ours to decide
Before concluding this Order we cannot help remarking that both parties ie the DCM and the DDA have to share mutually the blame for the present situation
The DCM for its cavalier away in having asserted to own 63 acres of land and the DDA in casually without consulting its records passing its Resolution No 26 dated February 1 1983 and communicating the same to the DCM on 31 3 1983
Should the DCM now confine its scheme and project to its owned 52 acres of land abandoning any effort to have included the remaining DDA owned 11 acres of land by negotiations and the DDA in not offering on its own or otherwise the said land to the DCM the project as originally conceived would have to be spruced
It is evident from the proceedings of the Resolution that as per Master Plan 2314 acres have been earmarked for flatted factories and 4339 acres as residential though the sum total goes to more than 63 acres
Both these areas include areas set apart for facilities and amenities enumerated therein
The respective areas in that event would have to be reduced keeping in view the ground realities of ownership and the earmarking in the Master plan
Cuts inevitably may have to be employed in either area or both
Be that as it may the scheme in the modified from would have to be brought in not a new but as a substitute for the original scheme and that scheme would register its birth legitimacy and binding force as of the original scheme
The mandate in this regard should be clearly understood by the parties concerned for they are under obligation to responsibly carry out the directions of this Court dated March 13 1990 in all events and share the burden of it indeed as doing the blame
With these observations these applications are disposed of
No Costs
TNA Applications disposed of


Summary:
The appellant was a Manager in one of the branches of the Respondent Bank
In 1985 there was a departmental enquiry against him on the charges that he discounted a cheque for Rs50000 drawn in the name of some other person to accommodate one of his colleagues and when the cheque returned unpaid he retained the same for about two months without taking action for realisation of the amount
An enquiry was conducted by the Commissioner for Vigilance Inquiry from the Central Vigilance Commission following the procedure prescribed by the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees  Disciplinary  Appeal Regulations
The Inquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charges were proved against the appellant
The Respondent Bank referred the matter to the Central Vigilance Commission for advice and the Commission recommended the punishment of compulsory retirement
After considering the Inquiry Report and after affording opportunity to the appellant the Disciplinary Authority imposed on him the 577 penalty of compulsory retirement
On appeal the appellate authority concurred with the findings recorded and the punishment imposed
The appellant filed a Writ Petition before the High Court challenging the order of his compulsory retirement
The High Court declined to interfere with the order
Hence the present appeal by special leave
The appellant also filed a Writ Petition before this Court challenging the validity of the direction dated 2171984 issued by the Finance Ministry following which the Respondent Bank has imposed on him the penalty of compulsory retirement
On behalf of the appellantpetitioner it was contended that the advice given by the Central Vigilance Commission was blindly followed by the Respondent Bank as it was made binding on it by virtue of the directions dated 21784 issued by the Ministry of Finance and in that process the merits of the case and the statutory regulations governing departmental inquiries were ignored
It was also contended that the subject matter of the inquiry was only regarding irregularities in banking practice and since the interest of the Bank was not affected as he had the money recovered and credited to the Bank with interest thereon the alleged misdemeanour did not warrant any major penalty like compulsory retirement which even according to the Respondent Bank was too harsh
On behalf of the Respondent Bank it was contended that it had independently considered the material on record notwithstanding the advice given by the Central Vigilance Commission and since the orders did not refer to the circulars or to the advice of Central Vigilance Commission the punishment imposed on the appellantpetitioner was not vitiated by extraneous influences
Allowing the matters this Court HELD 1
The Respondent Bank itself felt that the compulsory retirement recommended by the Central Vigilance Commission was too harsh and excessive on the appellantpetitioner in view of his excellent performance and unblemished antecedent service
The Bank made two representations one in 1986 and another in 1987 to the Central Vigilance Commission for taking a lenient view of the matter and to advise lesser punishment
Apparently those representations were not accepted by the Commission
The disciplinary authority and the appellate authority therefore had no choice in the matter
They had to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement as advised by the Central Vigi 578 lance Commission
The advice was binding on the authorities in view of the directive of the Ministry of Finance issued on 2171984 followed by two circulars issued by the successive Chief Executives of the Bank
The disciplinary and appellate authorities might not have referred to the directive of the Ministry of Finance or the Bank circulars
They might not have stated in their orders that they were bound by the punishment proposed by the Central Vigilance Commission
But it is reasonably foreseeable and needs no elaboration that they could not have ignored the advice of the Commission
They could not have imposed a lesser punishment without the concurrence of the Commission
Indeed they could have ignored the advice of the Commission and imposed a lesser punishment only at their peril
586F H 587 A C 21 But for the Finance Ministry s directive dated 2171984 the advice tendered by the Central Vigilance Commission is not binding on the Bank or the punishment authority it is not obligatory upon the punishing authority to accept the advice of the Central Vigilance Commission
588C 22 The Ministry of Finance has no jurisdiction to issue such a directive to Banking institutions
The Government may regulate the Banking institutions within the power located under the 
Even though Section 8 thereof empowers the Government to issue directions in regard to matters of policy there cannot be any uniform policy with regard to different disciplinary matters and much less there could be any policy in awarding punishment to the delinquent officers in different cases
The punishment to be imposed depends upon the nature of every case and the gravity of the misconduct proved
The authorities have to exercise their judicial discretion having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case
They cannot act under the dictation of the Central Vigilance Commission or of the Central Government in the exercise of their power and the imposition of punishment on the delinquent officer
Therefore the directive of the Ministry of Finance is wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to the statutory Regulations governing disciplinary matters and is quashed
588D H 589A AND silva vs Union of India 1962 Suppl
SCR 968 relied on
De Smith s Judicial Review of Administrative Action 4th Edn
p 309 referred to
579 3
the Chairman of the Respondent Bank is directed to withdraw the circular letters dated 2771984 and 891986 issued in furtherance of the Finance Ministry s directive dated 2171984
589C Setting aside the orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority this Court directed the disciplinary authority to dispose of the case in accordance with law and observations made in the judgment