TMI Blog1972 (9) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authority Act, 1950. The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 came into force in January, 1958By section 516(1)(a) of the Corporation Act, the Delhi RoadTransport Authority Act, 1_50, stood repealed and in virtue ofseveral other sections of the Corporation Act the functions of the Delhi Road Transport Authority were taken over by the Corporation.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 become 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 r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yees, whether temporary or permanent,. (b) to posts carrying a minimum monthly salary (exclusive of allowances) of less than three hundred and fifty rupees. shall vest in.......... the General Manager (Transport). The minimum monthly salary of respondent no. 2 was less than ₹ 350/- and hence the, appropriate authority under the Corporation Act to appoint respondent no. 2 would be the General Manager (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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. (ii) in relation to any matter pertaining to the Delhi Transport Undertaking, as a reference to the General Manager (Transport).......... Reading these 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 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. Mr. Chagla, appearing on behalf of the, appellant Undertaking, cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce. That was in January, 1958. Section 516 while repealing 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 is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, continue in force and bedeemed to have been made under the provisions ofthis 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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( 64 Indian Appeals, 40.). 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llegal 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 M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
