Case: Prahlad Sharma Vs. State Of U.P.

3. The Corporation is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act. It is a Government company. The appellant has been working as a Service Engineer in the said Corporation at Hapur. It is the case of the Corporation that the appellant had committed serious financial irregularities which came to the light of the Corporation and in respect thereof the Managing Director of the Corporation instituted a department enquiry some time in October, 1997. The charges were found proved and ultimately the Managing Director passed the order dated 29.7.2000 dismissing the services of the appellant with immediate effect. An appeal was preferred to the Chairman of the Corporation against the order of punishment. The appellate authority by order dated 14.9.2000 partly allowed the appeal and ordered for reinstatement of the appellant with an observation that if the Managing Director desires he may inflict minor punishment of censure against the appellant. It was also found by the appellate authority that no charges were proved against the appellant nor the Corporation has suffered any financial loss. The conduct of the appellant, it has been observed, was infirm in following the departmental rules and procedure and he has been careless in his dealings.4. It appears that against the order passed by the Chairman reinstating the appellant, revisional power of the State Government as provided under Rule 13 of the U.P. Rules of 1999, was invoked by the Corporation. The State Government allowed the revision and found that charges of serious financial irregularities were proved against the appellant. The punishment of dismissal as inflicted by the Managing Director was justified. The order passed by the Chairman allowing the appeal was set aside and the order of punishment was restored.5. It appears that before the State Government a plea was raised about the jurisdiction of the State Government to entertain the revision under Rule 13 of the U.P. Rules, 1999. In the revisional order, however, it is mentioned that the above said U.P. Rules of 1999 were adopted by the Board of Directors of the Corporation, in that view of the matter the State Government was empowered to hear the revision.revision.6. We may straightaway address to the question about the exercise of revisional power by the State Government as provided under the U.P. Rules of 1999. The Resolution dated 10.7.2001 passed by the corporation reads asAgenda No.1In respect of incorporating the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 in the Corporation Services Rules, 1984."Proposal is passed taking a decision that the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 notified by the Special Secretary, Labour DepartmentI vide notification no.dated 9th June, 1999 along with necessary amendments will be made applicable to the officers/employees of the Corporation and it is permitted to incorporate the same in the Service Rules, 1984 of the Corporation."In view of the above resolution, the U.P. Rules of 1999 have been made applicable to the officers/employees of the Corporation and they were permitted to be incorporated in the Corporations service rules of 1984.Rule 13 of the U.P. Rules of 1999 provides as under:"RevisionNotwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Government may of its own motion or on the representation of concerned Government servant call for the record of any case decided by an authority subordinate to it in the exercise of any power conferred on such authority by these rules; anda) confirm, modify or reverse the order passed by such authority; orb) direct that further inquiry be held in the case, orc) reduce or enhance the penalty imposed by the order; ord) make such other order in the case as it may deem fit."

Court's reasoning:
Incumbent of such officers may even though some times be Govt. servants on deputation but while working as a Chairman or the Managing Director or any authority in the organization or the corporation, they would not be subordinate to the government. It is again to be noticed that then perhaps the right to invoke the revisional powers may be available only to the concerned government servant as provided under rule 13 and may not be available to the employee of the corporation.Therefore, it is submitted and in our view, rightly, that adoption of rules are implemented in a manner as they fit in the structure of the adopting organization and not as a straight jacket application to the adopting organization. It has also been pointed out that according to the provisions of the rule 13, as it is, an order can be subjected to the revisional power of the State only if the order has been passed in exercise of any power conferred under rules of 1999. It is submitted that the orders passed by the Managing Director or the Chairman cannot be said to be orders passed under the U.P. Rules of 1999 and not under the rules as adopted by the Corporation.s, itself implies applicability of any provision with necessary changes in points of detail. The rules which are adopted, as has been done in the present case, make the principles embodied in the rules applicable and not the details pertaining to particular authority or the things of that nature. In the present case, we find that the High Court has found that the U.P. Rules of 1999 have been adoptedTherefore, in our view, the revisional power which has been vested in the state government in respect of the employees of the state may be exercisable by an authority parallel or corresponding thereto in the Corporation in regard to employees of theview of the decision of the Board of Directors and the resolution and later on as a consequence thereof substitution of Rulein the General Service Regulations of 1984 of the Corporation, it is clear that the rules as applicable to the employees of the U.P. Government, in the matters relating to disciplinary action, suspension or subsistence allowance etc. were made applicable to the employees of the Corporation. It appears that since for the employees of the state government some new rules were promulgated namely, the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, a second resolution was passed on 10.7.2001 specifically incorporating those rules for the purposes of disciplinary matters against the employees of the Corporation. In this light of the matter of question of giving retrospective effect to the U.P. Rules of 1999 does not arise. We feel that even if no specific resolution was passed for incorporation of U.P. Rules of 1999 shall be available in respect of the employees of the Corporation is erroneous and not sustainable. The High Court abruptly formed the opinion without examining the question at all.12. We, however, need not go into the question, as sought to be raised, as to who would be an authority parallel or corresponding to the state government in the Corporation to whom a revision may lie, since it is not involved in this case.