JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner who has since retired was appointed by the Board of Directors of the respondent Government of India undertaking as Chief Technical Officer on 30.11.1978. In contemplation of the departmental enquiry, the petitioner was suspended in July 1983 vide Annexure-4 u/R. 10 of the Central Civil Services, (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and the Chairman, Managing Director while exercising powers under sub-rule (1) and (2) of R. 18 of the CCA Rules had ordered the joint enquiry against Shri R.X. Bhalla and Shri J.P. Dhawan and the petitioner V.K. Jain for the reason that there was common charge-sheet against the aforesaid persons. The petitioner was charge-sheeted vide Annexure-6 dated 1.8.1983. One Shri A.K. Rastogi was appointed as enquiry officer. Pending enquiry, the petitioner was reinstated vide Annexure-8 without prejudice to the pendency of the enquiry and without prejudice the period of suspension at the time of conclusion of the enquiry. Ultimately, the petitioner was awarded the punishment vide Annexure-9 dated 18.3.1985 by way of reduction of two stages in the time scale of his pay for the period of two years i.e. he was not to earn increments of pay during the period of two years and on the expiry of two years period, he would earn normal increments of his pay. The period of suspension from 28.7.1983 to 17.9.1984 was to be treated as suspension and only the subsistence allowance as admissible under the rules was to be paid. One J.L. Marwah who was also proceeded jointly was given different punishment and it was decided to withhold the amount of Rs. 50/- p.m. from the monthly pension payable to Marwah for a period of two years and after the expiry of two years Marwah was to be released full pension as stated in Annexure-10. 2. The petitioner challenged the order Annexure-9 by filing an appeal which appeal was dismissed by the Board of Directors on 2.1.1991 (Annexure- 12). 3. 50/- p.m. from the monthly pension payable to Marwah for a period of two years and after the expiry of two years Marwah was to be released full pension as stated in Annexure-10. 2. The petitioner challenged the order Annexure-9 by filing an appeal which appeal was dismissed by the Board of Directors on 2.1.1991 (Annexure- 12). 3. Being aggrieved against the orders Annexures-9 & 12 the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on the grounds inter alia; (1) that the impugned order has been passed by the authority which was not competent to pass the same i.e. the appointing authority was the Board of Directors and not the Chairman cum Managing Director and, therefore, order Annexure-9 passed by the Managing Director is without jurisdiction being not legally competent to inflict any of the major penalty as mentioned in the CCA Rules; (2) That the action of the Chairman cum Managing Director to hold joint enquiry is bad in the eyes of law and violation of R. 18 of the CCA Rules and other rules which state that where two or more Government servants are concerned in any case, the President or any other authority competent to impose the penalty of dismissal from service on all such Government servants may make an order directing that disciplinary action against all of them may be taken in a common proceedings and in case the authorities are different, the order for taking disciplinary action in a common proceeding maybe made by the highest of such authorities with the consent of the others. It is the submission that the appointing authority for the petitioner was the Board of Directors and, therefore, the order for initiating the common proceedings could only have been initiated by the Board of Directors and not by Chairman cum Managing Director; (3) that the order of suspension has also been passed by the authority which was not competent to pass the order under the rules as mentioned above so is the case of appointment of enquiry officer. 4. 4. The above order is also being challenged on the ground that in the meetings of the Board of Directors while deciding the appeal, the participation of P. Subramaniam who was working as Salt Commissioner with additional charge of Chairman cum Managing Director had vitiated the appellate order for the reason that as Chairman Cum Managing Director he had passed certain orders against the petitioner and, therefore, the order was biased. 5. Prayer has been made to quash Annexures 9, 12 and to set aside Annexure-5 being void and ultra vices the rules. Another prayer has been made to the effect that the petitioner was entitled to increase of subsistence allowance from 50% to 75% immediately after three months of the order of suspension. 6. In the reply filed by the respondents, it is stated that the respondent No. 1 has been delegated the powers by the Board of Directors for the purpose of suspension. It is also denied that the respondent No. 1 was not authorised to pass an order of joint enquiry under Rule 18. It is denied that the petitioner has any similarity with the punishment imposed to Shri J.L. Marwah. 7. The two main points have been argued which go to the root of the case i.e. the powers of the Chairman and the Chairman-cum- Managing Director to suspend, initiate, pass an order of joint enquiry and order of punishment. It is admitted that the appointing authority of the petitioner is Board of Directors, but a defence has been taken that the Board of Directors had delegated its powers to the Chairman cum Managing Director. Except the bare submission made in written statement, no other document has' been attached to substantiate the averment in the written statement that the powers were so delegated by the Board of Directors to the Chairman and further whether there was any enabling rule/regulation authorising the Board of Directors for delegating the powers to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director qua the disciplinary proceedings to be taken against the employees and if it be so, whether Board of Directors had actually delegated such powers or not. 8. 8. The respondent has placed on record the minutes of the 137th meeting of the Board of Directors held on 27.9.1982 and item No. 7 of the agenda under heading "Revision of delegation of powers to Chairman cum Managing Director" following decision was taken : "The Board considered the revised delegation of powers to the Chairman Cum Managing Director and approved the same as enclosed and desired that the same be sent to the Ministry for approval so that modifications if any may be ratified in Board's next meeting." 9. The revised delegation of powers to the Chairman cum Managing Director had also been attached in relation to budget, works, contracts and purchases, `personnel', modifications and replacements, marketing, write off etc. The present case falls under the heading of `Personnel'. Clause 4(ii) mentions creation of posts and termination otherwise than on acceptance of resignation from service of persons from posts at the Head Office/ factories/ projects with scales the maximum of which exceeds Rs. 2,500/- p.m. Creation of posts in the scale of Rs. 1500-2000 and above shall be reported to the Board at the next meeting. 10. Annexure-4, the suspension order has been passed by the Chairman- cum-Managing Director on 28.7.1983. Similarly, the charge-sheet has also been issued vide Annexure-6 by same officer including the appointment of enquiry officer and so is the order of punishment passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director (Annexure-9). In the ground of appeal filed before the Board of Directors it was specifically mentioned and also discussed in the appellate order that the Chairman-cum-Managing Director was not competent to award the order of punishment. In the impugned appellate order Annexure-12 while dealing with said point, the appellate order states as under:-'. "It has been stated by the appellant that the then CMD was not competent to award the punishment against Shri Jain as he was not his appointing authority as the appointment order of Shri Jain was issued by the then CMD on the approval of the Board of Directors. "It has been stated by the appellant that the then CMD was not competent to award the punishment against Shri Jain as he was not his appointing authority as the appointment order of Shri Jain was issued by the then CMD on the approval of the Board of Directors. We have examined this point in detail and have come to the conclusion that order appointing Shri Jain was issued under the signatures of the CMD and at the time of initiating disciplinary action against him, the then CMD was competent authority to appoint officers of the category to which Shri Jain belongs under the delegation of powers to the CMD by the Board of Directors." 11. The Board of Directors in observing as above has come to the conclusion that because of the reason that the appointment order was signed by the CMD, therefore, he was competent to pass any other order as well, however, it is not denied that the appointing authority of the petitioner was Board of Directors. The respondent has erred in reading the appointment order Annexure-1 even though it is signed by CMD himself, but it is stated in the appointment order itself that the petitioner was being appointed with the approval of the Board of Directors and similarly his letter of confirmation was issued after the Board of Directors approved it. Only because of the reason that the order of conveying appointment have been signed by CMD, it cannot be said that CMD acquires the powers and jurisdiction in the case where the Board of Director is the appointing authority and even otherwise it is so mentioned in the rules as made applicable to the respondent that the disciplinary action in regard to officer of the category of the petitioner could only be taken by the appointing authority which was Board of Director, as such the order of CMD passed from the very beginning i.e. suspension, issuing the charge-sheet and the appointment of enquiry officer and the order of punishment stands vitiated having been passed without jurisdiction. Even though it has been averred in the written statement that CMD was authorised by the Board of Directors with delegation of powers, but the respondent has not produced any regulation, rule, statutory instructions to establish that the powers could be delegated to CMD under the rules and that such powers were actually delegated as well. Even though it has been averred in the written statement that CMD was authorised by the Board of Directors with delegation of powers, but the respondent has not produced any regulation, rule, statutory instructions to establish that the powers could be delegated to CMD under the rules and that such powers were actually delegated as well. This point having been so raised time and again by the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the respondent to have produced the relevant record or attached the copies of such record to enable this Court to come to such conclusion that such powers were ever delegated to the CMD by the Board, but non-production of record or non-attaching of the documents with the written statement does help the petitioner to say that neither there were any provisions for delegating the powers by the Board of Directors to the CMD nor such powers were ever delegated. 12. The only agenda of the minutes of the 137th meeting of the Board of Directors held on 27.9.1982 at Jaipur i.e. agenda No. 7 reads as under:- "Revision of delegation of powers to Chairman-cum-Managing Director. The Board considered the revised delegation of powers to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director and approved the same as enclosed and desired that the same be sent to the Ministry for perusal so that modifications if any may be satisfied in Board's next meeting." 13. Agenda No. 7 upon which the above-said decision was taken related to the revised delegation of powers to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director on the pattern of other public sector undertakings with suitable amendments. The revised delegation of powers to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director has also been produced for perusal which was put up for consideration in agenda No. 7. The relevant item of agenda is reproduced as under : `Revised delegation of powers to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director'. Subject to the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company, the powers vested in the President thereunder and the policies laid down by the Board of Directors of the Company from time to time the Chairman-cum-Managing Director is authorised to : (i) exercise full powers of the Board of Directors for managing the business of the Company except for item listed in the enclosure, which would require the approval of the Board.' `The following matters will require the approval of the Board of Directors 1. Budget 2. Works 3. Contracts and purchase 4. Personnel (i) Basic organisational set up and regular strength with pay scales for the projects. (ii) Creation of posts and termination otherwise than on acceptance of resignation from service of persons from posts at the Head Office/factories/projects with scales the maximum of which exceeds Rs.2500/- p.m. (iii) Regulation relating to recruitment, promotion, other conditions of service, disciplinary action and changes therein. (iv) General revision of wage structure/pay scales for workers, staff and officers. (v) Policy matters relating to allowances, bonus and fringe benefits. (vi) Extension of service of any employee, who has attained the age of 58 years and employment of any person, who has attained the age of 58 years except on muster roll or adhoc basis. (vii)Filling up of sanctioned posts whose maximum of scale of pay exceeds Rs. 2,500/- per month. (viii lumber and terms of appointment of foreign technicians and training of Personnel abroad.' From the above, it is clear that so far the budget, works, contracts and purchase and personnel matters were concerned, they still require the approval of the Board of Directors. 14. The revised powers as put in the agenda 4 in regard to personnel did require the approval of the Board of Directors. 15. Nothing has been brought on record that the approval was ever sought on even otherwise whether decision on agenda No. 7 was approved by the Central Government or not? Even assuming that the decision was approved, but still it was the requirement of law that the action being taken against the petitioner ought to have been put up before the Board. Photo-stat copy of item of agenda and decisions are also placed on record. 16. Reliance is placed by the petitioner on a judgment of Dr. P.N. Varman v. The Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana & Ors., 1989(2) SLR 351 and the judgment in the case of Doonger Chand Dangi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1990(1) WLN 247 in regard to delegation of powers. 17. There is hardly any necessity to go into any other point as raised by the petitioner for the reason that the CMD was not authorised or competent either to initiate action against the petitioner or to pass any punishment order except with the approval of the Board of Directors which having not been done, the impugned orders Annexure-9 is without jurisdiction and is set aside. 18. Consequently, all orders or actions taken against the petitioner in this regard shall be deemed to have no relevancy and are set aside with costs of Rs.2,000/-. 19. The writ petition is allowed.Petition allowed. *******