LPA No.229/2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No.229/2007 Date of Decision: 14.3.2008. The Punjab Nurses Registration Council,Mohali ............. Appellant through Mr. RK Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr.Ashish Chopra,Advocate for the Appeallant Council. Versus Gulshan Bir Kaur and others ..............Respondents through Mr.TS Dhindsa, Advocate. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER JAIN, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment. 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? . ***** Vijender Jain,Chief Justice The present appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent Act is directed against the judgment of learned single Judge dated 3.10.2007, vide which the writ petition has been allowed primarily on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings against Gulshan Bir Kaur-respondent no.1 could not be initiated by the President, as it was the Punjab Nurses Registration Council (for short the Council) who was only the competent authority under the relevant rule and as such the order of termination of her service as Registrar of the Council has been held to be illegal and quashed with all consequential benefits. LPA No.229/2007 2 The facts in brief are that Gulshanbir Kaur-respondent no.1- was appointed as Registrar of the Council after her regular selection vide appointment order dated 3.11.2000. She joined duty on 16.11.2000. Ultimately her services as Registrar of the Council were terminated vide the impugned order dated 17.5.2004 (Annexure P-13) passed on the basis of findings recorded in the enquiry report submitted on the two charge sheets of even date i.e. 5.6.2002, served upon her under Rule 8 of Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules,1970, for imposing major penalty. Her statutory appeal against the same was rejected vide order dated 16.7.2004 (Annexure P-17). She filed writ petition No.5122 of 2005, impugning both the orders dated 17.5.2004 (Annexure P-13) and 16.7.2004 (Annexure P-17) and the learned single Judge vide impugned judgment dated 3.10.2007 passed in CWP No. 5122 of 2005 quashed the impugned orders 17.5.2004 (Annexure P-13) and 16.7.2004 (Annexure P-17) with all consequential benefits. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is relevant for proper adjudication of the appeal to reproduce Regulation 11 of the Punjab Nurses Registration Council (Employees Conditions of Services) Regulation,1977:- “11(i) Discipline, Penalty and Appeals: The President shall be competent to take such disciplinary action, as he may deem necessary including withholding increments, suspension, removal of dismissal against all members of offices establishment of the Council below the rank of Registrar. An appeal against such decision of the President lies with the Council. (ii)The President shall report to the council all matters for disciplinary action against the Registrar for their decision. Appeal shall lie with the government against the decision of the council.” LPA No.229/2007 3 Counsel for the appellant-Council has argued that under Regulation 11 of the 1997 Regulation (supra), the President was competent to issue charge sheets and hold a departmental enquiry and it was only disciplinary action/punishment against the Registrar (respondent no.1- petitioner) which was required to be taken by the Council ( as has been done in the present case). In support of this argument counsel has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Hasmukhbhai Hirabhai Rana, 2007(3) SLR 224. On the other hand, Sh.T.S.,Dhindsa, learned counsel for the respondent-no.1- petitioner has argued that clause (ii) of Regulation 11 is categoric in providing that the President shall report all matters pertaining to the disciplinary action against the Registrar to the Council for decision and hence all actions of the appellants which culminated in termination of respondent no.1- Gulshan Bir Kaur, were void ab initio. In support thereof, he has relied upon the law as interpreted by this Court in Bajinder Kumar Chopra v. The Food Corporation of India, 1998(3) SLR 268. It is an admitted proposition of law that before issuance of any charge sheet, the competent authority has to take a decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings, which are deemed to commence from the date of issuance of the said charge sheet. It is apparent from the records that in the present case it was the President of the Council who had taken a decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings as well as issue charge sheet and such decisions were got ratified by the Council. It is further an agreed proposition of law that an action without jurisdiction cannot be ratified. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law LPA No.229/2007 4 canvassed by the counsel for the appellants relying on the judgment in Hasmukhbhai's case (supra) that departmental proceedings can be initiated by a person lower in rank than the appointing authority but the final order can only be passed by the appointing authority or an authority higher to him under the rules. The said judgment and the proposition of law in the given facts of the present case are not of any assistance to the case of the appellants. Sub clause (ii) of Regulation 11 (supra) very clearly spells out that the President of the Council, where any disciplinary matter relating to the post of Registrar is concerend, has absolutely no jurisdiction. He is only required to forward everything for appropriate decision before the Council. We are in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents and are supported in that view by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Bijender Kumar Chopra's case (supra) in which in para 5 after discussing entire case law, principles which emerge have been recorded. For ready reference, they are reproduced hereunder:- (i)The power to initiate disciplinary proceedings/action is quite distinct from the power to impose punishment. (ii)The authority competent to impose punishment can delegate its power to initiate disciplinary proceedings unless the rules prohibit such delegation. (iii)Even in the absence of any specific provision, an authority other than the authority competent to impose punishment/ appointing authority can initiate disciplinary action against the delinquent employee. (iv) The initiation of proceedings can be invalidated only if the LPA No.229/2007 5 rules specifically empower a particular authority to initiate the action and some other authority not empowered to do so institute the disciplinary action.” (emphasis supplied). In the present case it cannot be denied that foundation of action of termination of services of respondent no.1 from the post of Registrar is the initiation of disciplinary proceedings by the President of the Council, who had absolutely no jurisdiction to do so in view of Regulation 11(ii), therefore, the ratio of the above said Division Bench judgment , where parameters have been laid down, is applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the above, we find no legal infirmity in the judgment dated 3.10.2007 of learned single Judge. Hence, the present LPA is dismissed with no order as to costs. (VIJENDER JAIN) CHIEF JUSTICE 14.3.2008 (JASWANT SINGH) joshi JUDGE