Girija Shankar Mohapatra .… v. State of Odisha & Others
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 30343 of 2020 & W.P.(C) No. 633 of 2022 (Applications under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India.) W.P.(C) No. 30343 of 2020 --------------- Girija Shankar Mohapatra .…… Petitioner - Versus - State of Odisha & Others ...…. Opp. Parties W.P.(C) No. 633 of 2022 Harihar Pati .…… Petitioner - Versus - State of Odisha & Others ...…. Opp. Party Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- _________________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sameer Kumar Das, P.K. Behera & N. Jena, Advocates. (In W.P.(C) No. 30343 of 2020) Mr. Kunal Kumar Swain, K. Swain & J.R. Khuntia, Advocates. (In W.P.(C) No. 633 of 2022) For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, Addl. Government Advocate. Mr. B. Routray, Sr. Advocate with M/s. Prabhat Ku. Dash, R. Kanungo & S. Nanda, Advocates (for O.P.No.4 in W.P.(C) No.30343/2020) Page 1 of 39 Mr. Sameer Kumar Das, P.K. Behera & N. Jena, Advocates. (for O.P.No.4 in W.P.(C) No.633/2022) ___________________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA ORDER 17th May, 2024 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. Both these writ applications involve same facts for which they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 30343 of 2020 has filed the writ application seeking the following relief: it “Under the above circumstances, is therefore humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court be the order dtd: graciously pleased 22.10.2020 and dtd: 06.11.2020 of the Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure- 10 and 11 respectively and direct the opposite parties not to interfere in the functioning of the present petitioner as Principal-in-charge of the College; to quash And further the Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the draft charge dtd: 25.08.2020 under Annexure-11-A as it is illegal without jurisdiction and authority; And/or other writ/writs, order/orders/direction/directions in the fitness of the case. pass any And for this act of kindness as in duty bound the petitioner shall ever pray.” 3. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 633 of 2022 has filed the writ application seeking the following relief: Page 2 of 39 “Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the writ petition may be allowed; And (A) a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ may be issued commanding the opposite parties more particularly the Sub-Collector-cum-Special Officer- in-Charge of the Governing Body of Anchalik Vigyan Higher Secondary School, Sirigida opposite party No.3 to appoint the petitioner as Principal-in- Charge of the Higher Secondary School in question as he is the senior most Lecturer of the said Higher Secondary School and he is also senior to opposite party No.4 in all respect i.e. in length of service as well as in age and the appointment of the petitioner as Principal-in-Charge of the Higher Secondary School in question may be approved by the Director, Higher Secondary Education, Odisha, the order dated Bhubaneswar basing upon 06.11.2020 of the Director, Higher Secondary Education, Bhubaneswar Odisha, under Annexure: 17 and the appointment and approval of opposite party No.4 and his further continuance against the post of Principal-in- Charge of the Higher Secondary School in question may be declared illegal and bad in law, within a time to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court; оr (B) And any direction/directions may be issued so as to give complete relief to the petitioner; order / orders other And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound remain ever pray. 4. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.30343 of 2020 is opposite party No.4 in W.P.(C) No. 633 of 2022 and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 633 of 2022 is opposite party No.4 in W.P.(C) No. 30343 of 2020. For convenience, parties are referred to by their names. Page 3 of 39 FACTS 5. The facts, which are common to both the writ applications, are as follows: 5.1. Sirigida Anchalika Bigyan Mahavidyalaya was established in the year 1992 with +2 Science class and received recognition from the academic session 1992-93. It received Block Grant under the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2008 w.e.f. 20.01.2009. The name of the institution was changed by the Government to Sirigida Anchalika Bigyan Higher Secondary School, Sirigida, vide notification dated 27.06.2011. 5.2. Girija Shankar Mohapatra was appointed as Lecturer in Chemistry of the College on 29.05.1994 and joined as such on 30.05.1994. Harihar Pati was appointed as Lecturer in Botany on 25.11.1993. Appointment of both Lecturers and other staff of the College were approved as per order dated 08.07.2011 of the Director, Higher Secondary Education, Odisha. By order dated 08.07.2011, the Sub-Collector was directed to nominate the name of the senior most approved teacher to function as Principal in- Page 4 of 39 charge. Harihar Pati being the senior most submitted his written unwillingness citing personal difficulty. The next senior being one Sabita Sahoo, Lecturer in English, also submitted her written unwillingness. Both of them recommended the name of Girija Shankar Mohapatra in their written unwillingness. Accordingly, the Sub-Collector recommended the name of Girija Shankar Mohapatra to act as Principal in-charge, which was approved by the Director in his letter dated 11.08.2011. 5.3. While Girija Shankar Mohapatra was continuing as such, the Director, Higher Secondary Education (opposite party No.2) directed the Sub-Collector, Keonjhar in his letter dated 18.02.2020 to initiate disciplinary action against him for negligence in duty, non-maintenance of cash book and use of card for biometric attendance. By letter dated 25.06.2020, Girija Shankar Mohapatra was directed to produce the records of the institution for enquiry, which he produced in his letter dated 05.07.2020. 5.4 By notification dated 08.09.2020, the State Government dissolved all the governing bodies of the aided Page 5 of 39 Junior Colleges/ Higher Secondary Schools and nominated the Sub-Collector of the concerned sub-division to act as President of the governing body of the institution. Accordingly, the Director, Higher Secondary Education in his letter dated 09.10.2020 requested all the Principals of the Aided Educational Institutions to abide by the decision of the Government. While the matter stood thus, by letter dated 25.08.2020, the Sub-Collector prepared draft charges against Girija Shankar Mohapatra and forwarded the same to the Director for approval and further course of action. Copy of the said letter has been enclosed as Annexure-11-A to the writ application, i.e., W.P.(C) No. 30343 of 2020. By letter dated 22.10.2020, the Additional Director intimated the Sub-Collector that the Director had approved the draft charges. Copy of such letter has been enclosed as Annexure-10 to the writ application. Again by letter dated 06.11.2020 the Director directed the Sub-Collector to intimate the name of the senior most teaching staff to be appointed as Principal in-charge of the institution. Page 6 of 39 Case of Girija Shankar Mohapatra 6. Girija Shankar Mohapatra questions the competence of the Sub-Collector to initiate disciplinary action against him on the ground that it is only the governing body which is competent to do so. There being no governing body and the Sub-Collector being only the Special Officer cannot take any disciplinary action against any employee. Further, no show cause notice was issued with any definite charge before preparing the so called draft charges. In any case, the Government having dissolved the governing bodies of all the educational institutions nominating the Sub-Collector as the President, he could not have acted as Special Officer. Moreover, as per law laid
Legal Reasoning
decision of this Court in the case of Dr. Upendra Sahoo vs. State of Odisha and others2, wherein the following observations are noteworthy:- “12. From the above order of the High Court, it is crystal clear that this Court gave a clear direction to the opposite party no.2 therein, i.e., the Director, Higher Education, Bhubaneswar to conclude the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner within a period of four months with further direction to pay the arrear subsistence allowance entitled to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order. It is needless to submit here that Rule-21 of 74 Rules also makes it clear that if Governing Body is unable to conclude a proceeding the Director can exercise the power of Disciplinary authority hence and conclude the proceeding. In the present case in absence of a Governing Body the Director was directed to conclude 2 2015(Supp.1) OLR 1104 Page 25 of 39 the disciplinary proceeding. On conclusion of the Disciplinary proceeding at his end following Sub-rule- 2(b) of Rule 21 on his recommendations the Government Body ought to have imposed any of the penalties specified in Rule 20 on the petitioner. xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied)” 23. Obviously, if any other interpretation would be made, it would render the very object of the provision otiose inasmuch as it would entail a situation where, as already stated, there would be no authority competent to take action against an errant employee. In other words, a vacuum! The above could not have been the object of the statute. It is well settled that the Court must construe the statute to promote its object and to serve the purpose for which it had been enacted and not deface its very purpose. Reference in this regard may be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of RBI v. Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd.3, (1987) 1 SCC 424, where the following observations are noteworthy: “33. Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They are the bases of interpretation. One may well say if the text is the texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted when we
Arguments
down by this Court in the case of Sri Satya Sai Seva Organization and another Vs. State of Odisha and others1, the Sub-Collector as President of the governing body is not competent to take any disciplinary action against any employee. Even otherwise, there is no provision under Rule-22 of the Orissa Education (Recruitment and 1 2008 (II) OLR-432 Page 7 of 39 Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974 (in short “1974 Rules”) for framing of draft charge or for the Director to approve such draft charge. That apart, merely on the basis of some bald allegations, without the same having been proved, Girija Shankar Mohapatra could not have been removed from the post of Principal in-charge. Further, Harihar Pati having expressed his unwillingness in writing to act as Principal in-charge, he may be deemed to have forfeited his right forever and therefore, cannot be nominated as such. Case of Harihar Pati 7. Though Harihar Pati has submitted his unwillingness in writing to act as Principal in-charge in the past, yet the same cannot stand in the way of his being so nominated again for the reason that the Government Resolution dated 23.03.2015 forfeiting the right of a person giving such written unwillingness to be considered for the post in future was not in existence when he had expressed his unwillingness on 18.07.2011. The Resolution dated Page 8 of 39 23.03.2015 cannot have any retrospective operation. That apart, said Resolution has since been withdrawn as per Government Order dated 20.04.2022. Further, the Sub- Collector having been appointed as Special Officer in exercise of the powers conferred on the prescribed authority by Section 7-A(3) of the Odisha Education Act, 1969 (in short the „Act‟) is fully competent to initiate disciplinary action against an employee. In any case, the Director has accorded approval to the action of the Sub-Collector in the absence of governing body. The Resolution dated 21.01.2020 was issued under Sub-Section 7(6) of the Act on entirely different premise and object. Said notification does not supersede the earlier notification issued under Section 7-A(3) of the Act. It is also the case of Harihar Pati that this Court may not interfere with the disciplinary proceeding as it has been initiated by the proper authority. Further, Girija Shankar Mohapatra cannot question the competence of the Sub-Collector or the Director since he had himself submitted to their jurisdiction without raising any objection in the past on several occasions including requesting the Director to conduct enquiry. Page 9 of 39 Case of the State 8. The writ applications have been filed without proper cause of action since only a proceeding has been initiated and no action has been taken. In the instant case, the Sub-Collector has prepared and forwarded the draft charges to the Director, who being the final authority has approved it. Therefore, the Sub-Collector cannot be said to have acted in excess of jurisdiction. In fact, Girija Shankar Mohapatra was himself approved as Principal in-charge – cum- Secretary of the College by the Director on the recommendation of the Sub-Collector. Further, no cause of action also exists for Harihar Pati in view of the fact that because of operation of interim order of stay passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 30343 of 2020 no action has been taken in relation to letter dated 06.11.2020 of the Director directing the Sub-Collector to intimate the name of the senior most teaching staff to be appointed as Principal in- charge. Since the Sub-Collector observed gross negligence in duty by Girija Shankar Mohapatra, such as, not taking classes regularly, tampering of biometric attendance of staff Page 10 of 39 and irregularities in maintenance of financial transactions of the institution, he suggested for initiation of disciplinary action against him, which was approved by the Director. Girija Shankar Mohapatra is not the senior most approved teaching staff, rather Harihar Pati is the senior most. In any case, the post of Principal in-charge is not a substantive post. 9. Heard Mr. Sameer Kumar Das, learned counsel for Girija Shankar Mohapatra; Mr. Budhadev Routray, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Prabhat Kumar Dash; and Mr. Kunal Kumar Swain, learned counsel appearing for Harihar Pati; and Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State. Submissions 10. Mr. Sameer Kumar Das would argue that the Sub-Collector is not competent to initiate disciplinary action against any employee for the reason that he being nominated as the President of the governing body cannot act as the governing body. It is the governing body alone which is competent to take disciplinary action against an Page 11 of 39 employee. Mr. Das further argues that Rule-22 of 1974 Rules provides the procedure for imposing penalties. There is no provision for preparation of any draft charges, rather sub-Rule (2) provides that definite charges shall be framed and communicated in writing to the employees. As per sub- Rule (12), the disciplinary authority can only forward the record of the enquiry to the Director for his advice. Thus, the Director also cannot take any disciplinary action against any employee. Mr. Das further submits that no show cause notice was issued to Girija Shankar Mohapatra before initiating the proceeding. Mr. Das has drawn attention to the relevant documents available on record to argue that the Sub-Collector was appointed as Special Officer on 18.03.2020 and on the same day the Director directed him to initiate disciplinary action, conduct special audit and direct the Principal regarding work distribution. All this reflects a pre-determined mind. Further, the Sub-Collector assumed charge on 25.08.2020 so, how could he take stock of the situation so as to initiate disciplinary action by issuing the draft charges on the very same day. Mr. Das concludes his arguments by submitting that the Girija Page 12 of 39 Shankar Mohapatra cannot be removed from the post of Principal in-charge without any finding of guilt recorded against him. 11. Mr. B. Routray, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. K.K. Swain have both contended that the arguments advanced on behalf of Girija Shankar Mohapatra are misconceived. The order of the Director, being the prescribed authority, appointing the Sub-Collector as Special Officer is upon exercise of power conferred on him by Section 7-A(3) of the Act. On the other hand, the notification of the Government dissolving all governing bodies was issued by exercising power under Section 7(6) of the Act. The scope of both are different. The subsequent notification cannot therefore, be said to have superseded the earlier notification which implies that the Sub-Collector continued to be the Special Officer with power to take all administrative action in respect of the institution. It is further contended that even otherwise, only charges have been framed and no action had been taken against Girija Shankar Mohapatra. Dislodging him from the post of Page 13 of 39 Principal in-charge is not a punishment within the meaning of Rule-20 of the 1974 Rules as it is not a substantive post. Additionally, Mr. Swain would contend that reliance placed on the Resolution of the Government dated 23.03.2015, as per which an employee having once expressed his unwillingness to act as Principal is not to be considered in future, cannot have a retrospective operation. Harihar Pati had submitted his unwillingness much before i.e. on 15.07.2011. In any case, Resolution dated 23.03.2015 has since been withdrawn. 12. Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State would contend that the letter under Annexure- 11-A of W.P.(C) No. 30343 of 2020 contains the details of the draft charges, which were approved by the Director in his letter vide Annexure-10. But, no disciplinary action has been taken against Girija Shankar Mohapatra as yet. Therefore, there is no definite cause of action to prefer the writ application and in any case, it is premature. Mr. Pattnaik further contends that the letter under Annexure- 11 reflects an entirely different matter having no connection Page 14 of 39 with the other impugned letters. The Sub-Collector has only forwarded the draft charges to the Director, who is the final authority to take disciplinary action in the absence of a governing body. Analysis of rival submissions and findings 13. From the rival submissions noted before, it is evident that the following points need to be determined in these writ applications: (i) Whether the writ applications have been prematurely filed. (ii) Whether the Sub-Collector as Special Officer appointed under Section 7-A(3) of the Act is competent to frame draft charges against an employee of an aided educational institution. (iii) Whether the Director, Secondary Education is competent to initiate disciplinary proceeding against an employee of an Aided Educational Institution. Page 15 of 39 (iv) Whether it is otherwise open to Girija Shankar Mohapatra to question the competence of the Sub- Collector to initiate disciplinary proceeding against him. 14. As already stated, Girija Shankar Mohapatra has filed the writ application seeking quashment of the orders under Annexure-10, 11 and 11-A. By the letter under Annexure-11-A, draft charges were framed by the Sub- Collector and forwarded to the Director for his approval. By the order under Annexure-10, said draft charges were approved. Ordinarily, a mere challenge to framing and approval of draft charges could not have been challenged as it would be premature, but in the instant case, Girija Shankar Mohapatra has questioned the very competence of the concerned authorities in taking such action. It is trite law that a disciplinary action can only be taken by the competent authority. Since the competence of the authority has been questioned, this Court holds the writ application maintainable even at this stage. As regards the communication under Annexure-11, though the same Page 16 of 39 ostensibly does not have any relation to either Annexure-10 or Annexure-11-A, yet since Girija Shankar Mohapatra is presently functioning as Principal in-charge, he would be affected by giving effect to the order under Annexure-10. Therefore, it is open to him to challenge the said order. 15. In so far as the prayer made by Harihar Pati is concerned, he has prayed for appointing him as Principal in-charge and for removal of Girija Shankar Mohapatra as such. Said order has not yet been acted upon because of operation of the order of stay granted by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 30343 of 2020. Even otherwise, only a direction has been issued to the Sub-Collector by the Director. Harihar Pati‟s approach to this Court at this stage appears to be a pre-emptive action, which cannot be countenanced in law. It seems he apprehends that despite being the senior most, he may not be nominated to act as the Principal in- charge which reflects an apprehended cause of action. This Court therefore, holds W.P.(C) No.633 of 2022 as not maintainable. Page 17 of 39 16. As regards the competence of the Sub-Collector to issue the notifications, much has been argued with reference to the provisions under Section-7-A(3) and 7(6) of the Act. Both sides have also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Sri Satya Sai Seva Organization (supra) in support of their respective stands. Additionally, reference has been made to the provisions under Rules-20, 21 and 22 of the 1974 Rules. There is no dispute that the Sub- Collector, Keonjhar was appointed as Special Officer in respect of the institution in question by order dated 18.03.2020 of the Director in exercise of powers conferred under Section 7-A(3) of the Act. It would be profitable to refer to Section 7-A as a whole, which is quoted hereunder: “7-A.(1) Where the prescribed authority is satisfied that the managing committee or, as the case may be, the governing body of any private educational institution has neglected or failed to perform any of the duties imposed by or under this Act or the rules or to give effect to the order or direction issued by the Tribunal under Section 24-A or has acted in excess of the authority vested in it or in any manner which is the educational prejudicial institution, he may, after giving the managing committee or the governing body, as the case may be, a cause, supersede the managing committee or the governing body, as the case may be. reasonable opportunity of showing interest of the to (2) As soon as possible, after supersession of a managing committee or governing body, as the case Page 18 of 39 may be, the prescribed authority shall reconstitute the managing committee or the governing body, as the case may be, and the managing committee or the governing body, so reconstituted shall, subject to the provision in sub-section (1), continue for a term of three years from the date of such reconstitution. (3) During the period intervening the supersession or expiry of the term of a managing committee or governing body, as the case may be, and its reconstitution, the powers and functions of the managing committee or the governing body, as the case may be, shall be exercised by such person or persons as the prescribed authority may appoint. xx xx xx” On the other hand, by notification dated 08.09.2020, the Government in exercise of power conferred under Sub- Section(6) of Section-7 of the Act inter alia dissolved the governing bodies of the aided educational institutions and directed that the Sub-Collector of the concerned sub- division to act as the President of the governing body. Pursuant to such notification, further letter was issued by the Director on 09.10.2020 inter alia to the Principals of all concerned educational institutions to abide by the decision of the Government. It would be useful to refer to the relevant provision, which is quoted hereinbelow. “7(6) The prescribed authority may allow the Governing Body or the Managing Committee, as the case may be, whose term has expired under sub-section (4) or sub-section (2) of section 7-A to continue in office till the Governing Body or the Page 19 of 39 Managing Committee is reconstituted, or appoint any person or persons to exercise the powers and discharge the functions of the Governing Body or the managing Committee during the intervening period: that Provided the State Government may reconstitute the Governing Body or the Managing Committee as the case may be, notwithstanding that the term of such Governing Body or Managing Committee has not expired and on such reconstitution, the existing Managing Committee or Governing Body, as the case may be, shall stand dissolved” 17. As regards the educational institution in question, admittedly there was no governing body for which the Director appointed the Sub-Collector as Special Officer to exercise all the administrative and financial powers of the governing body under the provisions of Odisha Education Act and Rules till reconstitution of the governing body. It is contended that the subsequent notification dated 08.09.2020 issued by the Government automatically superseded the order appointing the Sub-Collector as Special Officer. 18. On a plain reading of the notification dated 08.09.2020 it is seen that the same was made applicable to the governing bodies of all non-Government Aided Higher Secondary Schools except “the Higher Secondary Schools, Page 20 of 39 where Sub-Collectors/Additional District Magistrates have already been nominated as President of the governing bodies” (emphasis added). As already stated, in the case at hand, the Sub-Collector was not nominated to act as President of the governing body but as Special Officer. Thus, the power has been exercised by different authorities under two different provisions. Section 7-A(3) of the Act comes into operation when there is a time-gap between supersession or expiry of the term of the governing body and reconstitution of a new body, for whatever reason. It is to prevent a hiatus being created that the Prescribed Authority (Director) has been empowered to appoint a person (usually called Special Officer) to exercise the powers and function of the governing body. Section 7-A, it must be noted, is a special provision relating to supersession and reconstitution of Managing Committee or Governing Body. 19. Section-7, on the other hand is a general provision relating to Managing Committee or Governing Body of an institution. Sub-Section (6) inter alia confers power on the State Government to dissolve the Managing Page 21 of 39 Committee or Governing Body of an institution or reconstitute a new body even before expiry of its term. Obviously, the provisions under Section 7(6) and 7-A(3) operate in different situations. Section 7-A comes into play when there is any default on the part of the body as mentioned in Sub-Section(1) whereas Section-7, as already stated, can come into play at any time without any pre- conditions being in existence. Significantly, the State has clarified that the appointment of the Sub-Collector as Special Officer was in terms of Section 7-A(3) of the Act, as evident from the following averments made in its counter affidavit. “6. That in reply to the averments made in paragraph-7 of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted that, the averments made by the writ petitioner are not sustainable in the eye of law. In this writ petition, the petitioner questioned about the authority of Governing Body as there is no Governing Body which has already been admitted by the writ petitioner in this paragraph and also alleged on what authority, direction was issued to the Sub-Collector to proceed against the petitioner. In this scenario it is to state that, the Special Secondary Secretary-cum-Director, Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in exercise of powers conferred under section 7-A(3) of O.E. Act, 1969 appointed the Sub-Collector, Keonjhar Sadar as Special Officer in respect of the Anchalika Higher Secondary School, Sirigida, Telkoi in the district of Keonjhar in order to exercise all the Administrative & Financial powers of the Governing Higher Page 22 of 39 Body of the said Higher Secondary School/ Jr. till reconstitution of G.B. vide Order College No.4920, dated 18.03.2020 which has been communicated to the Sub-Collector, Keonjhar Sadar vide Memo No.4921, dtd. 18.03.2020 of the Additional Director, DHSE, Odisha…………….” 20. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the view that the Notification dated 08.09.2020 has no relevance in the present context. Significantly, the Sub- Collector being appointed as Special Officer by order dated 08.03.2020 of the Director assumed charge as such as late as on 25.08.2020. In the meantime however, he seems to have functioned purportedly in such capacity by issuing several instructions to Girija Shankar Mohapatra including production of records/documents etc. Nevertheless, fact remains that he prepared the draft charges after formally assuming charge as Special Officer. 21. Now, coming to the question of competence of the Sub-Collector in preparing the draft charges against Girija Shankar Mohapatra in the capacity of Special Officer and of the Director in approving such charges, it has been argued that no authority other than the governing body has the power to initiate and take disciplinary action against a Page 23 of 39 staff and that the Director has only an adversary jurisdiction in terms of Rule-22(12) of the 1974 Rules. This Court is unable to accept the above arguments – firstly, for the reason that if such is the interpretation then a vacuum would be created inasmuch as there would be no one competent to take disciplinary action against an errant employee till reconstitution of the governing body. Such a proposition would be absurd as there can be no vacuum in law. Reference to Rule-21 of 1974 Rules would indicate that the Director is competent to impose the penalty specified in Rule-20 with the proviso that the Director shall not initiate any disciplinary proceeding unless the governing body refuses or neglects to take disciplinary action against any employee. For immediate reference, Rule 21(1) of 1974 Rules is quoted hereinbelow: “21(1) The Director may impose any of the penalties specified in rule 20 on any employee: Provided that the Director shall not initiate any disciplinary proceeding unless the Managing Committee or the Governing Body, as the case may be, refuses or neglect to take disciplinary action against any employee.” Page 24 of 39 22. Read as a whole, the interpretation according to this Court of the above provision would be that ordinarily it is the governing body which is competent to initiate disciplinary proceeding against an employee. But if it neglects or refuses to do so, the Director can himself initiate a disciplinary proceeding. The power to impose penalties is however, vested on the Director subject to the proviso. On the same analogy, in the absence of a governing body the Director can initiate the proceeding and impose penalties on an employee. Reference in this regard may be had to the