Holding

The amendment to the CDA Rules was effective from 8 January 1996, the Board’s ratification validated it, and the dismissal by the Chairman‑cum‑Managing Director was lawful; the respondent was not denied his right of appeal.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined whether the amendment to Goa Shipyard Officers' Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1979—made by a circular board resolution—was valid despite lacking an explicit effective date, and whether the Board could retrospectively ratify the amendment to validate the dismissal of Babu Thomas. The respondent, a Joint Manager (Security), was dismissed for demanding bribes by the Chairman‑cum‑Managing Director under the amended rules, and his appeal to the Board was rejected. The High Court had set aside the dismissal on the ground that the amendment was ineffective under Rule 41 of the CDA Rules. The Court held that the amendment became effective on 8 January 1996 as approved by the majority of directors and ratified by the Board, thereby complying with Rule 41, and that a Board can retrospectively validate an otherwise invalid act. Accordingly, the dismissal was within authority and the respondent was not denied his right of appeal. The appeal was allowed, restoring the dismissal order.

Issues considered

The amendment to the CDA Rules complied with Rule 41 despite the absence of an explicit effective date in the amendment itself.
Whether the Board of Directors can retrospectively ratify an invalid amendment and thereby validate actions taken under it.
Whether the dismissal order passed by the Chairman‑cum‑Managing Director was within authority under the amended rules.
Whether the respondent was denied his substantive right of appeal under the amended disciplinary scheme.

Legislation cited

Companies Act, 1956s. 289

Subjects

disciplinary proceedingsamendment of rulescorporate governanceratificationright of appealRule 41Companies Act 289dismissalboard authority

Judgment

MIS GOA SHIPYARD LTD. ..).
A
v. ;.._-

BABU THOMAS

MAY 30, 2007

B (H.K. SEMA AND R.V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.]

Goa Shipyard Officers' Conduct Discipline and Appeal (CDA) Rules,
f_
1979-Amendment thereof substituting for Committee of Directors appointed
by Board of Directors (Board) General Manager/Functional Directors as
c Disciplinary Authority and Chairman-cum-Managing Director (CMD) as
Appellate Authority-Employee dismissed by CMD and same confirmed on
appeal by him to Board as Appellate Authority-However, High Court holding
amendment was ineffective as did not mention date from which it would be
effective as prescribed by Rule 41 ofCDA Rules, and since under-unamended
•
Rules, Board was Disciplinary Authority, dismissal by CMD, a lower authority,
D
was without authority-Correctness of-Held-Rule 41 was complied with
since approval of amendment by circulation of its draft by majority of Board _i,
of Directors was ratified subsequently by Board's resolution mentioning its
coming into effect from the date when the same were approved by majority
of Directors Board of Directors could subsequently ratijj; an invalid act and
E validate it retrospectively-Employee was not denied right of appeal and no
prejudice caused to him as dismissal order was of CMD and appeal there
from to Board was dismissed after independent consideration with detailed
order and application of mind

The respondent was appointed as Joint Manager (Security) by Chairman
F and Managing Director (CMD) of appellant company. He was caught red
handed by C.l.D./Crime Branch of Police while demanding illegal gratification
from contractor employed by the appellant. He was placed under suspension
in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings. Charge were levelled against
him and an Enquiry Officer was appointed.
G
The Conduct and discipline of all officers of the appellant was governed
by the Goa Shipyard Officers' Conduct, Discipline and Appeal (CDA) Rules
1979. An amendment was made to these Rules to substitute the General
Manager/Functional Director as Disciplinary Authority in place of Committee ,,.,
of Directors appointed by Board of Directors (Board), and Chairman-cum-
H 830

\

•
1
GOA SHI PY ARD LTD. v. BABU THOMAS 831
·L
· Managing Director (CMD) as Appellate Authority in place of board for A
-,l
imposing major·penalties in the cases of officers upto and inclusive of
Managers.

The inquiry Officer completed the inquiry and submitted his report. A
show Cause Notice was issued on 5.10.1996 to the respondent as to why that
Report and its findings should not be accepted. After examining the reply B
thereto, the respondent was dismissed from service by the Chairman-cum-
Managing Director on 21.1.1997. The respondent's appeal before the Appellate
Authority the Board, was rejected and it confirmed his dismissal. Aggrieved
thereby the respondent preferred a Writ Petition. It was disposed of by High
Court on a preliminary objection that the amendment to CDA Rules by Board
had not come into effect since it did not mention the date from which it would
c
be effective, as prescribed by Rule 41 ofCDA Rules. Under un-amended CDA
Rules, the Board was the Disciplinary Authority, therefore dismissal order
by CMD, a lower authority, was without authority. Hence the present appeal
by special leave.
D
Appellant contended that (i) the draft of the amendment to the CDA Rules I

.J_ was circulated and approved by majority of the six Mem hers of Board of
Directors on 8.1.1996 and given effect from that dated; (ii) this was ratified
by Board of Directors resolution on 18.3.1998 with clarification of coming
into effect date of amendment being 8.1.1996.
E
Respondent contended that under the amended CDA rules the appellate
authority is the Chairman and Managing Director but as the major penalty
has been imposed by the Chairman & Managing Director, he cannot act as
an Appellate Authority and therefore the respondent has lost one form of
remedy available to him.
F
_, Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. Having regard to Board's resolution dated 18.3.1998, it
should be taken that the amendment of CDA Rules by Circular Resolution
No. 13/1995, itself provided that it would take effect from 8.1.1996 (the date
on which the same were approved by the majority of Directors). Therefore,
G
Rule 41 of the CDA Rules that the amendment will come into effect from the
date stated therein is fully complied with. IPara 11 I

-"" 1.2. The Board of Directors of a company could subsequently ratify an
invalid act and validate it retrospectively. !Para 11 I
H
832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 7 S.C.R.
.J·

A Maharashtra State Mining Corpn. v. Sunil, 120061 S SCC 96, followed. ;.._-

. State of Goa v. Babu Thomas, 120051 8 SCC 130, held inapplicable.

2. The respondent was not denied the right of appeal. Undisputedly, this
resp()ndent filed an appeal before the Board of Directors, as the order of
B dismissal was passed by the MCD, and the Board of Dir~ctors considered his
appeal independently and by a detailed order after application of mind dismmect
the appeal on 27.9.1997. In such circumstances, no prejudice wha~oever has
been caused to the respondent as he availed an opportunity of an appeal before /.
the Board of Directors as an Appellate Authority. IPara 131

c Surjit Ghosh v. Chairman and Managing Director, 1199512SCC474,
distinguished.

Balbir Chand v. Food Corporation of India Ltd, 11997) 3 SCC 371,
relied on.
'
~

D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 851 of2005.

From the Final Judgment and Order dated 25.11.2003 of the High Court
of Bombay at Goa, in writ Petition No. 414of1997.

Sureildra Desai, Sr. Adv., Amarjit Singh Bedi, I. Bimola Devi, P. Kumar
E and Aruneshwar Gupta for the Appellant.

·· L. Nageshwara Rao, Sr. Adv., Haris Beeran (for Lawyers Knit & Co.) for
the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
•.
F
H.K. SEMA, J. l. The challenge in this appeal is to the order of 25th r-
November, 2003 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay
at Goa In' Civil Writ Petition No. 414 of 1997 whereby the order of dismissal
of the respondent dated 21.1.1997 dismissing him from service passed by the
Chairman and Managing Director and also the order of the Appellate Authority
G (Board) of 27.9.1997 confirming the order of dismissal were set aside. This
appeal is preferred by Mis Goa Shipyard Ltd.

Few facts may be noted. r'

2. The respondent was appointed by Chairman and Managing Director
H
GOA SHIPYARD LTD. v. BABU THOMAS [H.K. SEMA, J.] 833

as Joint Manager (Security) by an order dated 18.1.1991. On 26.8.1991 he was A
·given additional charge as officiating Manager-Personnel and Administration.
It is stated that on 14.9.1994 the respondent was caught red handed by C.1.D./
Crime Branch of Goa Police while demanding illegal gratification of
Rs.20,000/- from one Shri Chennaiah, a cleaning labour contractor employed
by the appellant. He was placed under suspension by an order dated B
15.9.1994 in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings. On 15.12.1994, 13
counts of charges were levelled against the respondent namely (i) demanding
and collecting illegal gratification, (ii) accepting bribe of illegal gratification for
recruitment in Petitioner company, (iii) withholding authorised payments for
extorting money or bribe, (iv) financial loss caused to the company by
misleading the Management by intentionally furnishing wrong advice; (v) C
misuse of contract employee; (vi) violation of company's policy on recruitment;
(vii) creating of new posts and converting security assistants as Personnel
Administration Assistants without sanction of the appropriate authority; (viii)
attempt to extort money from contractors; (ix) prejudicing the company and
its contractors by influencing a wage agreement; (x)(a) financial irregularities, D
improprieties and fraud and non accounting of compan~··s funds; (x)(b)
wrongful appropriation of money from the imprest account of Shri M.R.
Furtado; (x)(c) non-accounting of appropriation of advance drawn by Shri ·
M.R. Furtado; (xi) possession of pornographic materials; (xii) misuse of
company's car; and (xiii) unauthorized telephone bills of office and residential
phones. E
3. On 4.1.1995 one Shri N.P. Kumar was appointed as an Inquiry Officer.
The respondent in the interregnum filed Writ Petition No.137of1995 before
the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging the inquiry proceedings on the
grounds that relevant documents. were not furnished to him, legal assistance F
was not provided and subsistence allowance was not correctly paid. The
High Court by its interim order dated 2.5.1995 granted interim stay of inquiry
proceedings. By another order dated I 0.7.1995 the High Court vacated the
interim stay and allowed the disciplinary authority to proceed in accordance
with principles of natural justice and in accordance with law and directed the
appellant to furnish copies of all relevant documents to the respondent. The G
Writ Petition was disposed of on 26. 7.1995 directing the appellant to complete
the disciplinary proceedings within four months and the respondent was also
allowed to be represented by a lawyer of his choice during the disciplinary
proceedings. In the interregnum Cmdr. S.K. Mutreja was appointed as an
lnquiry Officer in place of Shri N.P. Kumar, who has since resigned. H
834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 7 S.C.R.

A 4. The conduct and discipline of all officers of the appellant were
governed by the Goa Shipyard Officers' Conduct, Discipline and Appeal
Rules, 1979 ('CDA Rules' for short). On 15.12.1995, an amendment to the CDA
Rules proposing substitution of the Schedule to the said Rules, was circulated
to the Board of Directors, vide Circular Board Resolution No. 13 of 1995 for
B approval by circulation. The purpose of the proposed amendment was to
redesignate the Disciplinary, Appellate and Reviewing Authorities for imposing
minor and major penalties. The said amendment to CDA Rules were approved
by circulation, by the Board of Directors. On 29.3.1996 CMD issued a Circular
notifying all employees, that the amendment to the CDA Rules were approved
and that the amendments came into force with effect from 08.01.1996. The said
C amendment inter a/ia substituted the General Manager/Functional Director as
Disciplinary Authority in place of 'Board' and CMD as Appellate Authority
in place of 'Board' for imposing major penalties in the cases of officers {upto
and inclusive of Managers). In regard to grades above Deputy General
Manager, CMD was designated as the Disciplinary Authority and the ~oard
D was the Appellate as well as Reviewing Authority. We extract below the
relevant portion of the Schedule to the CDA Rules before and after amendment:

Before Amendment :
Grade of Officer Appointing Disciplinary Appellate Reviewing
Authority Authority Authority Authority
E
Superintendents Board Reduction to a Board Board
to General lower stage in
Manager the time scale
or to lower MD
grade/post
F
Other Major
Penalties Board Board Board

Note : For the purpose of this Schedule, 'Board' means a Committee of Directors
appointed by the Board of Directors
G
After amendment :

Grade of Officer Appointing Disciplinary Appellate Reviewing
Authority Authority Authority Authority
All Officers up Chairman & General Manager/ Chairman & Board
H to and inclusive Managing Functional Director Managing
of Manager Director Director
GOA SHIPYARD LTD. v. BABU THOMAS [H.K. SEMA, J.) 835
Note : for the purpose of this Schedule, 'Board' means a Committee of A
Directors appointed by the Board of Directors....

5. The Inquiry Officer completed the inquiry and submitted its report on
19.9.1996 holding that the charges No. (i), (ii), (v), (vi). (vii), (x)(a), (x)(c), (xi),
(xii) and (xiii) were proved against the respondent and charges (iii), (iv), (viii)
and (ix) were withdrawn by the Management and further holding that charge B
(x)(b) was not proved. A Show Cause Notice dated 5.10.1996 was issued to
the respondent as to why the Inquiry Report and findings should not be
accepted. After examining the reply dated 31.10.1996 to the show cause
notice the respondent was dismissed from service by an order dated 21.01.1997
passed by the Chainnan-cum-Managing Director. The respondent's appeal C
before the Appellate Authority (Board) was rejected by an order dated
27.09.1997. The Appellate Authority, however, held that charges no.(ii), (v),
(x)(a), (x)(b), (xi) and (xiii) were not fully or entirely proved and confinned the
dismissal on charges (i), (vi), (vii), (x)(c) and (xii).

6. Aggrieved thereby the respondent preferred Writ Petition No. 414 of D
1997 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa. Many contentions were raised
before the High Court. However, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petition
on a preliminary contention. It held that amendment to CDA Rules by Board
Resolution circulated on 15.12.1995 and notified on 29.3.1996 did not come
into force at all, even though the circular dated 29 .3. l 996 under which the
amendment was notified stated that the amendments will come into force with E
effect from 8. l .1996. The High Court held that Rule 41 of CDA Rules provided
that any amendment will take effect from the date stated therein and therefore,
the date of coming into effect should be contained in the amendment itself
and not in a circular notifying the amendment. The High Court held that the
amendment approved vide board resolution notified on 29.3.1996 did not , F
mention the date from which the amendment would be effective and therefore
the amendment did not come into effect. The High Court held that as per the
CDA Rules (unamended), the Board was the Disciplinary Authority and
therefore the dismissal order by a lower authority namely CMD was without
authority. On this ground alone, the order of dismissal passed by the CMD
on 21. l. I 997 and the Appellate Authority's order dated 27 .9.1997 rejecting the G
appeal were set aside by the High Court by the impugned order. The said
order is challenged in this appeal by special leave.

7. We have heard Mr. Surendra Desai, learned senior counsel for the

H
836 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 7 S.C.R.

A appellant and Mr. L. Nageswara Rao, learned senior counsel for the respondent
at length.

8. The whole controversy revolves around the enforcement and effective
date of the Amended CDA Rules as provided under Rule 41 of CDA Rules,
relating to amendment of Rules. It reads:
B
"Amendment:

The Board may amend, modify or add to these rules, from time to time, J
and all such amendments, modifications or additions shall take effect
from the date stated herein. "
c (emphasis supplied)

The High Court was of the view that since the date of enforcement of
amended Rules were not stated in the amendment Rules as provided under
Rule 41, it cannot be said that the amendment to the CDA Rules came into
D force from 08.01.1996. The High Court held :

"The question, however, is whether the Rules could be said to. have
been amended and come into force. As already noted earlier, Rule 41
specifically and expressly provides for amendment in the Rules. Under
the said provision, the Board could amend, modify or add the Rules,
E but such amendment would take effect "from the date stated therein".
In other words, the Rules would get amended and such amendment
would be effective from the date mentioned in such amendment. So
far as the amendment is concerned, nothing is stated in the amendment.
Exh.R-4 recites: "Amendments to Goa Shipyard Officers' Conduct,
Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1979". It also states that those
F amendments would come into force from 8th January, 1996. Such a r
communications (CMD/34/96), in our opinion, however, cannot be
said to be amendment in the Rules covered by· Rule 41 of the Rules.
Obviously, therefore, when the amendments were made in the Rules,
no provisions had been made as to when they will come into force
G and with effect from which date, they will be implemented. Reliance
on Section 289 of the Companies Act, 1956 does not help the
resp_ondent. We would have considered the said submission, but in
view of the specific provision in rule 41 of the rules which expressly
lays down the date on which the amendment would come into force,
the learned counsel for the petitioner, in our opinion, is right in
H
GOA SHIPYARD LTD. v. BABU THOMAS [H.K. SEMA, J.] 837
contending that the amendment would not come into operation till the A
procedure laid down in Rule 41 is followed and the date is specified.
Apart from that, no resolution has also been placed on record as to
when such a decision was taken and as to the date from which the
amendment would become effective. The so-called decision dated
18th March, 1998 produced at the time of hearing is subsequent to the B
order of dismissal passed dated 21st January, 1997 and the same
cannot salvage the situation. The order of dismissal passed by the
Chairman-cum-Managing Director, hence deserves to be set aside as
also the order passed in Appeal by the Board. If the initial order is
invalid, its invalidity cannot be cured by ratification, approval or
confirmation by any authority (vide State of UP. v. Mohd Nooh, AIR C
(1958) SC 86; Farid Ahmed v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation,
AIR(l976) SC 2095, and Marathawada University v. Sheshrao, AIR
(1989) SC 1582).

9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the views taken by
the High Court were clearly erroneous. in law. He submitted that Resolution D
by circulation was recognized and permitted by Section 289 of the Companies
Act, which reads:-

"289. Passing of resolutions by circulation.- No resolution shall be
deemed to have been duly passed. by the Board or by a committee
thereof by circulation, unless the resolution has been circulated in E
draft, together with the necessary papers, if any, to all the directors,
or to all the members of the committee, then in India (not being less
in number than the quorum fixed for a meeting of the Board or
committee, as the case may be), and to all other directors or members
at their usual address in India, and has been approved by such of the F
directors as are then in India, or by a majority of such of them, as are
entitled to vote on the resolution."

The appellant contends that the draft of the amendment to the CDA Rules
was considered in the meeting of the Board of Directors on 28.9.1995 as item
No.A-15 but the same was deferred. It was again c'lnsidered at the Board G
meeting held on 2.12.1995 as item No.A-IO and it was decided to send the
agenda (containing the draft of the amendment to th.! CDA Rules) by
circulation to Directors for their approval. Accordingly the circular resolution
was circulated and approved by the six Directors (Members of Board of
Directors) on 15.12.1995, 5.1.1996, 5.1.1996, 8.1.1996, 12.1.1996 and 1.2.1996. As
the majority approved it by 8.1.1996, it was given effect from 8.1.1996. The H
838 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 7 S.C.R.

A approved circular Resolution No.13/1995 was again placed before the Board
of Directors on 21-3- r996 for ratification as item No.A- I 0 and the Board of
Directors duly ratified the Circular Board Resolution No.13 of 1995 amending
the CDA Rules.
·"'' ~·· .

I 0. Counsel for the appellant has also invited our attention to the
B resolution of Board of Directors held on 18.3.1998, which further ratifi~d and
classified that the Circular Board Resolution No.13 of 1995 dated 15.12.1995
came into effect on 08.01.1996 on which date the same was approved by the
majority of directors as required under Section 289 of the Act. The said f.
resolution is extracted below :

c "A-11- DISMISSAL OF MAJ. ~ABU THOMAS JT. MANAGER (S&A)
WRIT PETITION CHALLENGING ORDER OF DISMISSAL IN THE
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MUMBAI, PANAJI BENCH -
AMENDMENT TO CDA RULES.

37. CMD apprised the Board in the matter and drew the attention of
D the Board to Rule 41 of Goa Shipyard Officers' Conduct, Discipline &
Appeal Rules, 1979, which provides and empowers the Board to
amend, modify or add to the said 1979 Rules, from time to time and
further provides that all such amendments, modifications or additions
shall take effect from the date stated therein. The CMD further pointed
E out that no date had been specified as required under Rule 41 in the
amendments carried out to the said Rules vide Circular Board
Resolution No.13of1995 dated 15.12.1995.

38. The Board noted that the Circular Board Resolution No.13of1995
was circulated under Section 289 of the Companies Act, 1956, in view
F of urgency to amend the 1979 Rules due to (I) changes in grades taken
place since then, (ii) on account of administrative difficulties faced in
implementation of the existing Rules, and (iii) Government instructions
received by the Company from time to time to amend the Rules, etc.
The said amendments were intended to be enforced immediately and
after it were approved as required under the Companies Act, 1956. No
G specific date had been mentioned in the Resolution, since the said
Resolution was intended to take effect from the date the same was.
approved as required under Section 289 of the Companies Act, 1956.
The amendment had been brought into force and were being applied
from 08.01.1996, on which date the same were approved by the majority
H of the Directors as required under Section 289 of the Companies Act,
GOA SHIPYARD LTD. v. BABU THOMAS [H.K. SEMA,J.) 839
1956 and.on which date, in nonnal course, any such Resolution under A
the Companies Act would have come into force. The Board noted that
the aforesaid Circular Resolution duly signed and approved by the
Directors was received by the Company on various dates from
15.12.1995 and the majority of the Directors had forwarded the
Resolution by 08.01.1996 to the Company. The CMD also drew the
attention of the Board regarding the objections taken by Maj. Babu B
Thomas (dismissed employee) in Writ Petition No.414of1997, pending
disposal in the High Court of Judicature at Mumbai, Panaji Bench,
wherein he has challenged his dismissal on the ground amongst
others, that the amendments to l 979 Rules have not come into effect
since no date is specified in the amendments resolution. c
39. CMD brought out to the notice of the Board that the Board at its
meeting held on 28.11.1997, had noted the report of the Appellate
Authority appointed by the Board confirming the decision of
Disciplinary Authority of dismissing Maj. Babu Thomas from the .
services of the Company w.e.f. 21.01.1976 for serious and grave D
misconduct committed by him under the CDA Rules. After detailed
discussion, the Board, therefore, desired to clarify the position by
passing the following resolution:-

"RESOLVED THAT the Circular Board Resolution No.13 of 1995
dated 15.12.1995 amending the Goa Shipyard Officers' Conduct, E
Disciplines and Appeal Rules, 1979 shall take effect from the date the
same has been approved by the majority of the Directors of the
Company, in tenns of Section 289 of the Companies Act, 1956".

J 1. From the facts as adumbrated above it clearly emerges that having
regard to Board's resolution dated 18.3.1998, it should be taken that the F
amendment ofCDA Rules by Circular Resolution No.13/1995, itself provided
that it would take effect from 8.1.1996 (the date on which the same were
approved by the majority of Directors). Therefore, Rule 41 of the CDA Rules
that the amendment will come into effect from the date stated therein is fully
complied with. The question whether the Board of Directors of a company G 1

could subsequently ratify an invalid ad and validate it retrospectively is no
more res integra. The question has been conside:ed by a three Judge Bench
of this Court in Maharashtra State Mining Corpn v. Sunil, (2006] 5 SCC 96.
In that case the respondent, an employee of the Corporation was dismissed
by the Managing Director preceded by an inquiry. A Writ Petition was filed
challenging the dismissal order on the ground that the Managing Director of H 1
840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 7 S.C.R.

A the Corporation was incompetent to pass such order. During the·pendency
of the Writ Petition, the Board of Directors of the Corporation passed a
Resolution ratifying the impugned action of the Managing Director and also
empowering him to take decisions in respect of the officers and staff in the
grade of pay the maximum of which did not exceed Rs.4700/- p.m. The
Managing Director who dismissed the employee had earlier the power only
B in respect of those posts where the maximum pay did not exceed Rs.1800/-
p.m. The employee at the relevant time was drawing more than Rs.1800/- p.m.
and therefore, the Managing Director was incompetent to dismiss the
employee. The High Court set aside the order of termination on the ground
that the invalid act cannot be subsequently ratified by the Board of Directors.
C This Court after referring to various earlier decisions set aside the order of
the High Court. This Court held as under:

"The High Court was right when it held that an act by a legally
incompetent authority is invalid. But it was entirely wrong in holding
that such an invalid act cannot be subsequently 'rectified' by ratification
D 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".
E

"In the present case, the Managing Director's order dismissing the
respondent from the service was admittedly ratified by the Board of
Directors on 20th February 1991, and the Board of Directors
F unquestionably had the power to terminate the services of the
respondent. On the basis of the authorities noted, it must follow that
since the order of the Managing Director had been ratified by the
Board of Directors such ratification related back to the date of the
order and validated it".

G We, therefore, reject the contention that the order of dismis.:;al passed by
CMD is invalid for want of authority. ··

12. Mr. Rao, learned senior counsel for the respondent, referred to the
r
decision of this Court in the case of State of Goa v. Babu Thomas [2005] 8
H sec 130, in whicho.pe of us was a Member of the Bench (Serna, J) particularly
GOA SHI PY ARD LTD. v. BABU THOMAS [H.K. SEMA, J.) 84 I
the observation made in paragraphs 4,8 and 9 of the judgment. In our view, A
the judgment rendered in the aforesaid case relating to sanction for prosecution
under section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 would be of no
assistance to decide the issue on hand.

13. Mr. Rao next referred to the amended CDA rules wherein it has been
provided that for all officers up to and inclusive of Manager, the Disciplinary B.
Authority who can impose major penalties is the General Manager/Functional
Director and the Appellate Authority is the Chainnan & Managing Director.
According to Mr. Rao, since the order of dismissal has been issued by the
Chainnan & Managing Director who is an Appellate Authority, the respondent
has been deprived of his right of appeal to the Chainnan & Managing C
Director. According to him, under the amended CDA rules the appellate
.authority is the Chainnan & Managing Director but as the major penalty has
been imposed by the Chainnan & Managing Director, he cannot act as an
Appellate Authority and therefore the respondent has lost one fonn of remedy
available to him. We are unable to countenance to this submission. The
respondent was not denied the right of appeal. Undisputedly, the respondent D
filed an appeal before the Board of Directors, as the order of dismissal was
passed by the CMD, and the Board of Directors considered his appeal and
by a detailed order dismissed the appeal on 27 .9 .1997. In fact, the Board of
Directors independently considered the appeal and while dismissing the appeal
held that charges (ii), (v), (x)(a), (x)(b), (xi) and (xiii) are not fully or entirely
proved and confinned the dismissal order on charges (i), (vi), (vii), (x)(c) and
E'
(xii). The appeal was considered indepeneently by the Appellate authority
and a detailed order passed after application of mind. In such circumstances,
we are clearly of the view that no prejudice whatsoever has been caused to
the respondent as he availed an opportunity of an appeal before the Board
of Directors as an Appellate Authority. F
14. Mr. Rao invited our attention to the decision of this Court rendered
in Surjit Ghosh v. Chairman & Managing Director, (1995] 2 SCC 474, where
this Court observed as under:-

"However, when an appeal is provided to the higher authority G 1

concerned against the order of the disciplinary authority or of a lower
authority and the higher authority passes an order of punishment, the
employee concerned is deprived of the remedy of appeal which is a
substantive right given to him by the Rules/Regulations. An employee
cannot be deprived of his substantive right. What is further, when
H
842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 7 S.C.R.

A there is a provision of appeal against the order of the disciplinary
authority and wh~n the appellate or the higher authority against
whose order there is no appeal, exercises the powers of the disciplinary
authority in a given case, it results in discrimination against the
employee concerned".

B In our view, this decision would be of no help to the respondent's case on
facts. As already noticed in the present case, the respondent in fact, had
availed the remedy of appeal and filed the appeal before the Board of
Directors. That apart, the decision in Surjit Ghosh (supra) has been
distinguished by this Court in Balbir Chand v. Food Corporation of India
C Ltd., [1997] 3 SCC 371. It was pointed out as under:

"The learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised the contention that
since the petitioner was required to be dismissed by the disciplinary
authority, namely, Zonal Manager, who alone is competent to remove
him, the order of dismissal passed by the Managing Director is bad
in law. In support thereof, he placed reliance on a judgment of this
D
Court in Swjit Ghosh v. Chairman and Managing Director, United
Commercial Bank, (1995] 2 SCC 474. It is an admitted position that
as a joint enquiry was conducted against all the delinqm.:11t officials,
the highest in the hierarchy of competent authority who could take
disciplinary action against the delinquents wa~. none 0th.er than the
E Managing Director of the Corporation. In normal circumstances the
Managing Director being the appellate authority should not pass the
order of punishment so as to enable the, delinquent employee to avail
of right' of appeal. It is now a well settled legal position that an
authority lower than the appointing authority cannot take any
decision in the matter of disciplinary action. But there is no
F prohibition in law that the higher authority should not take decision
or impose the penalty as the primary authority in the matter of
disciplinary action. On that basis, it cannot be said that there will be
discrimination violating Article 14 of the Constitution or causing
material prejudice. In the judgment relied on by the counsel, it would
G appear that in the Rules, officer lower in hierarchy was the disciplinary
authority but the appellate authority had passed the order removing .
the officer from service. Thereby, the appellate remedy provided under
the Rules was denied. In those circumstances, this Court opined that
it caused prejudice to the delinquent as he would have otherwise
availed of the appellate remedy and his right to consider his case by
H
GOA SHIPYARD LTD. v. BABU THOMAS (H.K. SEMA, J.) 843

an appellate authority on question of fact was not available. But it A
cannot be laid as a rule of law that in all circumstances the higher
authority should consider and decide the case imposing penalty as a
primary authority under the Rules, In this case, a right of second
appeal/revision also was provided to the Board. In fact, appeal was
preferred to the Board The Board elaborately considered the mauer
through the Chairman. It is not violative of Article 14 of the B
Constitution".

[Emphasis supplied]

I 5. The High Court had allowed the respondents' writ petition by
upholding the preliminary contention that the CMD did not have the authority C
and jurisdiction to pass the order of dismissal. It did not consider the several
contentions raised by the respondent on merits. In the view that we have
taken, the decision of the High Court dated 25.11.2003 on the preliminary
contention cannot be sustained. We, therefore, set aside the Order of the
High Court dated 25.11.2003 which allowed Writ Petition No. 414of1997 on D
a preliminary ground. Consequently the writ petition shall stand restored to
the file of the High Court. The High Court shall now consider the other
contentions raised by the respondent-writ petitioner other than the issue
answered by this Court.

16. This Court on 23.8.2004 stayed the operation of the judgment of the E
High Court subject to the appellant making payment of the amount equivalent
to subsistence allowance from the date of the judgment of the High Court
within four weeks. This order was passed keeping in view that the order of
dismissal was set aside by the High Court. As we have set aside the order
of the High Court, the order of dismissal dated 21.1.1997 confirmed by F !

Appellate Authority's order dated 27 .9.1997 stands restored subject to the
final decision of the writ petition. The respondent-writ petitioner shall not be
entitled to any subsistence allowance from today till the writ petition is finally
disposed of by the High Court in accordance with law.

17. The appeal is allowed accordingly. Parties to bear their respective G
costs.

vs Appeal allowed.