P ANDREE Vs. TAMIL NADU MEDICAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 689 of 1991. The petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant in this Writ Appeal. The respondents in the Writ petition are the respondents in this writ Appeal. We find it convenient to refer to the parties as per their nomenclature in the writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner, who was functioning as the Registrar of the first-respondent, has been hauled up in disciplinary action. With regard to the disciplinary action initiated and prosecuted thus far, certain silient features have got to be set down to appreciate and assess the contentions raised by Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioner. THE first-respondent, by resolution dated 30th July, 1990 constituted a Special Committee, the second-respondent herein, consisting of four Medical Practitioners to enquire into certain charges against the petitioner, and report to the first respondent. One of the members of the Special Committee was designated as its Chairman. THE Special Committee framed the Specific charges on 3-8-1990. THE Special Committee, did not conduct the enquiry. THE enquiry part was entrusted to a retired District Judge. THE Enquiry Officer submitted his report and on the basis of the same, the Special Committee alone issued the second show cause notice on 7-1-1991 intimating the petitioner that the proposed penalty would be termination of his services and calling for his explanation over the same. THE petitioner came to this Court impugning the charge memorandum dated 3-8-1990 and the second show cause notice dated 7-1-1991 issued by the Special Committee.

(3.) HOWEVER, Mr. M. Kalyanasundaram, learned counsel for the respondents, would draw our attention to the pronouncement of a learned single Judge of High Court of Delhi reported in Workmen of Indian Overseas Bank v. Indian Overseas Bank and another 1973-1-LLJ. 316 where the charge sheets were issued by an authority other than the disciplinary authority; but the disciplinary authority himself held the enquiry, heard the concerned workmen and ultimately passed the dismissal order. The learned single Judge of the High Court of Delhi declined to accept the proposition that only if the rules permit such delegation, the action could be upheld; Our analysis and understanding of the proposition being different, we are not able to fall in line with the thinking of the learned single Judge of the High Court of Delhi. The proposition that must govern is that the authority conferred by statute with the power of removal alone should formulate the charges unless delegation of this part of the disciplinary action is permitted by the statutory provisions governing the same.