TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les nor there was any authorization given by the BOG in his favour to pass such order yet in our considered view when the BOG in their meeting held on 22.08.1996 approved the previous actions of the Principal & Secretary in passing the respondent's dismissal order dated 16.08.1996, all the irregularities complained of by the respondent in the proceedings including the authority exercised by the Principal & Secretary to dismiss him stood ratified by the Competent Authority (Board of Governors) themselves with retrospective effect from 16.8.1996 thereby making an invalid act a lawful one in conformity with the procedure prescribed in Rules. In such circumstances, the respondent's grievance that the dismissal order had not been passed by the competent authority, i.e., the BOG is no longer survived. We differ with the view taken by the High Court and accordingly hold that the dismissal order dated 16.08.1996 was passed by the Competent Authority, namely, the BOG as prescribed in the Rules and hence it was legal and proper. It is accordingly upheld. - C.A. 5070 Of 2008 - - - Dated:- 1-7-2015 - Sen Vikramajit And Sapre Abhay Manohar, JJ. For Appellant(s) Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter was accordingly placed in the 66th meeting of the Board of Governors (in short BOG ) held on 07.12.1994 as agenda Item Nos. 7 (a) and 8 under the caption To receive a note of recent financial stalemate created by Shri Pannalal Choudhary, Registrar who was also holding the charge of Deputy Registrar (Accounts) and suggest remedial measures to avoid such situation in future and second To consider rectification of irregularities observed by A.G. Audit in the accounts of REC Silchar . 8) The BOG discussed the matter under reference in the said meeting and viewed the same as being serious because of nature of charges and the allegations made in support thereof. The BOG approved the action proposed, initiated and taken by the Principal Secretary against the respondent so far and further directed to take next disciplinary step in consultation with the Chairman, BOG. 9) This led to constitution of an inquiry Committee consisting of three Members by the Management for holding a regular departmental inquiry into the charges leveled against the respondent. Out of three Members, one Dr. S.K. Das Head of the Department of Humanities of REC Silchar was appointed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Secretary to prepare the show cause notice and take necessary action as the Chairman/Board advises (Annexure-P-5) and do the needful in the matter. 13) Accordingly, a show cause notice was sent to the respondent on 07.06.96 (Annexure-P-6) by registered post along with the copy of the Inquiry report dated 29.02.1996 proposing therein the punishment of dismissal of the respondent from the service. Even after receipt of the show cause notice, the respondent did not file any reply. The Principal Secretary accordingly informed the Chairman by his letter dated 01.07.1996 (Annexure-P-7) about non-submission of any reply by the respondent. The Principal Secretary by his order dated 16.08.1996(Annexure-P-8) dismissed the respondent from the services of REC. 14) The matter was then placed before the BOG in their 69th meeting held on 22.08.1996 as Item No. 2 for appropriate orders, if any, in relation to the respondent's services. The BOG, in express terms, after deliberating the matter approved the minutes of earlier meeting and also approved of the action taken against the respondent by the Principal Secretary and accordingly noted its compliance made in that behalf. 15) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per. The appellant also defended the entire departmental proceedings initiated against the respondent contending that the departmental proceedings were held in accordance with law by following proper procedure prescribed in the Rules and giving full opportunity to the respondent to defend and hence no flaw can be noticed in the proceedings. 17) As mentioned above, the writ court (single judge) allowed the respondent's writ petition and set aside the dismissal order dated 16.08.1996 on the short ground that since the competent authority did not pass the dismissal order prescribed in the Rules, i.e., the BOG, whereas it was passed by the Principal Secretary who had no authority to pass such dismissal order under the Rules and hence it was liable to be set aside being against the rules. The writ court accordingly set aside the dismissal order dated 16.08.1996 with a direction to the appellant to reinstate the respondent in their services by giving him all consequential benefits. 18) Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed intra court appeal. By impugned order, the Division Bench concurred with the view taken by the Single Judge (writ court) dismissed the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e reasons rendered by the two Courts. 26) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find force in all the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the appellant. This we say so for the following reasons: 27) At the threshold, it is noticed that in the writ petition, the respondent had taken several grounds to challenge the dismissal order on merits. However, a perusal of order of the writ court would show that the writ petitioner did not press any of the grounds. The only ground, which he pressed, while prosecuting the writ petition, was that the order of dismissal was passed by the Principal Secretary of the NIT, who had no authority to pass such order. Since the authority, to dismiss the respondent vested in the BOG of the NIT under the Rules and hence the dismissal order was bad in law. In view of the fact that the respondent did not press any of the grounds before the High Court except the one mentioned above we need not go into any of the ground. The only issue the High Court was called upon to decide was whether the removal of the respondent from service was by the competent authority? 28) The High Court, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Principal Secretary, BOG, to take next disciplinary step in consultation with the Hon ble Chairman, BOG. (2) Minutes of the Meeting held on 08.06.1995 Item 6: To decide on the case of Sri Pannalal Choudhury, Registrar (under suspension). Sri Pannalal Choudhury, Registrar was put under suspension on 17.02.1995 by the Secretary, Board of Governors obtaining necessary legal advice as well as the written directive by the Hon ble Chairman, Board of Governors. The Hon ble Board in its 66th meeting vide Item No. 7(a) discussed various administrative charges of insubordination dereliction of duty, suppression of facts etc. and accordingly the chargesheets were served to Sri Choudhury. The Board then directed the Principal and Secretary to take necessary legal advice for further disciplinary actions in consultation with the Hon ble Chairman, Board of Governors. And the Board in the same meeting vide item No. 8 also scrutinized various financial irregularities highlighted by the A.G. Audit and also by the Principal and Secretary. The Board took the whole matter very seriously and directed the Secretary to take further legal advice and draw disciplinary proceedings ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utions of the last meeting. Under item-6B68/96: In pursuance of the resolution and direction of the Board actions were taken and dismissal order had been issued to Sri Pannalal Choudhury, Registrar (under suspension) on 16.8.1996 and his name had been struck off from the strength of the Regional Engineering College, Silchar Society. The Board noted the compliance of the action taken. The Board also noted the actions taken against item Nos.7, 8, 10, 15, 24 and 25 and approved the same. 30) Reading of the aforementioned four Resolutions passed by the BOG in juxtaposition in no uncertain terms show that the BOG monitored, dealt with and eventually decided the case of the respondent in their various meetings since inception and also authorized the Principal Secretary to deal with the same in consultation with the Chairman of Board of Governors and to do the needful by passing appropriate orders. It is also clear that in the last meeting held on 22.08.1996, the BOG approved the Resolution passed in the earlier 68th meeting held on 11.03.1996, which had dealt with the case of respondent at Item Nos. 6 and 24. 31) In our considered view, the expression autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court. 35) The expression Ratification means the making valid of an act already done . This principle is derived from the Latin maxim ratihabitio mandato aequiparatur meaning thereby a subsequent ratification of an act is equivalent to a prior authority to perform such act. It is for this reason; the ratification assumes an invalid act, which is retrospectively validated. 36) The expression ratification was succinctly defined by the English Court in one old case, Hartman Vs. Hornsby reported in 142 Mo 368 44 SW 242, 244 as under: Ratification is the approval by act, word, or conduct, of that which was attempted (of accomplishment), but which was improperly or unauthorisedly performed in the first instance. 37) The law of ratification was applied by this Court in Parmeshwari Prasad Gupta Vs. U.O.I (1973) 2 SCC 543. In that case, the Chairman of the Board of Directors had terminated the services of the General Manager of a Company pursuant to a resolution taken by the Board at a meeting. It was not in dispute that the meeting had been improperly held and consequently the resolution passed in the said meeting terminating the services of General Manage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the said defect could not be rectified subsequently by the resolution of the Board of Directors. The High Court set aside the dismissal order and granted consequential relief. The appellant then filed the appeal in this Court by special leave. Justice Ruma Pal, speaking for three- Judge Bench, while allowing the appeal and setting aside of the Court held as under : The High Court rightly held that an act by a legally incompetent authority is invalid. But it was entirely wrong in holding that such an invalid act could not be subsequently rectified by ratification of the competent authority. Ratification by definition means the making valid of an act already done. The principle is derived from the Latin maxim ratihabitio mandato aequiparatur, namely, a subsequent ratification of an act is equivalent to a prior authority to perform such act. Therefore, ratification assumes an invalid act which is retrospectively validated. In the present case, the Managing Director s order dismissing the respondent from service was admittedly ratified by the Board of Directors unquestionably had the power to terminate the services of the respondent. Since the order of the Managing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
