Page 1

                    Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No. 5070 OF 2008

National Institute of Technology & Anr. Appellant(s)

VERSUS

 Pannalal Choudhury & Anr.       Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) This appeal is filed against the final judgment & order

dated 17.11.2006 passed by the  High Court  of  Gauhati  in

W.A. No. 106/2004.

2) In order to appreciate the issue involved in this appeal,

which lies in a narrow compass, it is necessary to set out the

relevant facts in brief infra.

3) The  appellant  is  a  reputed  Technical  Educational

Institute in the country. It is known as  "National Institute of

Technology" (hereinafter referred to as “NIT”) at Silchar in the

1

Page 2

State  of  Assam.  Till  28.06.2002,  it  was  functioning  as

Regional  Engineering  College  (hereinafter  referred  to  as

“REC”)  in  equal  participation  of  State  and  Central

Government.  However,  on  and after  28.06.2002,  it  became

fully owned Central Government Educational Institute under

the exclusive control and supervision of Central Government

and was accordingly named as NIT.

4) The  respondent  was  originally  appointed  as  Deputy

Registrar (Accounts) on 17.07.1986 by the erstwhile REC in

their  Institute.  After  few  years,  the  respondent,  on  being

selected, was appointed as Registrar of the REC. However, he

was asked to hold the post of Deputy Registrar (Accounts) till

the said post was regularly filled up.  

5) In the  year  1994-95,  it  was noticed in  the  audit  that

while  functioning  as  Registrar/Deputy  Registrar(Accounts),

the  respondent  had committed  several  serious  financial  as

also  administrative  irregularities.    The  irregularities  were

related to  the  acts  of  insubordination,  dereliction of  duties

while attending to the work of the Institute, suppression of

facts  from  the  higher  authorities  and  misappropriation  of

Institution's funds thereby putting the Institute to suffer loss

2

Page 3

etc.  

6) The Management of REC accordingly issued three show

cause  notices/charge  sheets  two  on  24.10.1994

(Annexure-P-1collectively) and one on 01.02.1995 (Annexure

P-3) to the respondent under Rule 9 of the Assam Services

(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as

“the  Rules”).  The  details  of  the  irregularities/misconduct

committed by the respondent were enclosed with the charge

sheets. The respondent was asked to file his written reply to

the aforesaid charge sheets. He was also asked to inspect the

relevant documents, if he so desired to do so.    

7) The matter 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”.

3

Page 4

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 as the Presiding Officer while Sri. R. Gupta, Head

of the Department of Applied Mechanics and Sr. A.I. Laskar,

Lecturer  in  the  Department  of  Civil  Engineering  were  the

Members. Since the charges leveled against the respondent

were serious in nature,  the BOG, by order dated 17.02.1995

put the respondent under suspension pending departmental

inquiry.  

10) The Committee then issued notices to the respondent for

his  appearance  on  various  dates  such  as  04.07.1995,

4

Page 5

20.07.1995,  03.08.1995,  14.08.1995  and  27.12.1995  to

participate  in  the  inquiry  but  he  failed  to  appear  for  the

reasons  best  known  to  him.  The  Management  accordingly

examined  four  witnesses  in  support  of  the  charges  on

14.08.1995. Thereafter, on 27.12.1995 the respondent sent a

letter  to  the  Committee  praying  therein  that  since  he  has

challenged his suspension order in Court, the departmental

proceedings  initiated  against  him  be  stayed  awaiting  the

outcome of the Court proceedings.

11) The  Committee  considered  the  prayer  made  by  the

respondent and was of the view that in the absence of stay

order passed by any Court, there is no justification to stay the

departmental proceedings as prayed by the respondent.  The

Committee,  therefore,  rejected  the  prayer  made  by  the

respondent  and  issued  another  notice  to  the  respondent

requesting  him  to  appear  before  the  Committee  on

10.01.1996.  The respondent did not  appear and hence the

inquiry  proceedings  were  adjourned for  18.01.1996.  In  the

notice  sent  to  the  respondent  for  his  appearance  on

18.01.1996,  it  was  specifically  mentioned  that  in  case  the

respondent  fails  to  appear  on  that  date,  no  further  notice

5

Page 6

would be  sent  to  him of  the  proceedings.  The respondent,

despite  service  of  notice,  remained  absent  even  on

18.01.1996. The Committee then concluded its proceedings

on  the  basis  of  material  produced  before  it  by  the

Management and submitted its 16-page report on 29.02.1996

(Annexure-P-4),  concluding  therein  that  all  the  charges

leveled  against  the  respondent  in  3  charge  sheets  stood

proved.

12) On 11.03.1996, the report of the Committee was placed

before the BOG in their 68th meeting as Agenda Nos. 6 and 24

to decide further action keeping in view the findings of the

Committee. The BOG, after perusing the report, accepted all

the  findings  of  the  Committee  and  accordingly  resolved  to

impose  punishment  on  the  respondent.  The  BOG  also

authorized  the  Principal  &  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

6

Page 7

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) It  is  with  these  aforementioned  facts,  which  are

undisputed, the respondent, felt  aggrieved by the dismissal

order  dated  16.08.1996,  filed  writ  petition  before  the  High

Court. The challenge to dismissal order in the writ petition

was essentially  on one ground, namely,  that  the authority,

7

Page 8

which passed the dismissal order, had no power to pass and

hence it  was illegal and thus liable to be set aside. It  was

contended that the power to pass the dismissal order, as per

the Rules,   vests with the  BOG and hence only  the BOG

could  pass  such  order.  It  was  pointed  out  that  since  the

dismissal order was passed by the Principal & Secretary, who

had no authority to pass such order under the Rules, hence

dismissal order was bad in law. It was also contended that

even assuming that the BOG had delegated their powers in

favour  of  Principal  &  Secretary  to  take  appropriate

disciplinary action against the respondent as their delegate,

yet mere reading of the resolutions passed by the BOG in this

behalf would go to show that no such power was conferred

or/and  delegated  to  the  Principal  &  Secretary  so  as  to

empower him to pass dismissal order of the respondent.

16) The appellant (as respondent in the writ petition) while

opposing the writ petition defended their action, which had

culminated  in  respondent's  dismissal  from  service  and

contended that it was passed as per the Rules. According to

the  appellant,  the  entire  action  proposed,  initiated  and

eventually taken against the respondent which resulted in his

8

Page 9

dismissal  from  service  was  taken  by  the  BOG  and  later

approved by the BOG in their meetings held on various dates

and  hence  it  was  wrong  on the  part  of  the  respondent  to

contend that the dismissal order was not passed by the BOG

but was passed by the Principal & Secretary. It was pointed

out that the Principal & Secretary was also authorized by the

BOG  to  initiate  and  take  disciplinary  action  against  the

respondent in consultation with the Chairman,  BOG and do

the needful, which he did pursuant to such power delegated

to him, and later also  sought its approval from the BOG. It

was  lastly  contended  that  when  the  BOG,  in  their  last

meeting  held  on  22.08.1996  approved  the  entire  action

including  passing  of  the  dismissal  order  then  all  previous

actions taken by the Principal & Secretary stood ratified by

the  BOG from the  date  they  were  taken and thus became

legal  and  proper.  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.

9

Page 10

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's appeal. Challenging, the said order,

the appellant filed this appeal by way of special leave before

this Court.   

19) Heard  Mr.  Manoj  Goel,  learned  counsel  for  the

appellants  and  Mr.  Anshuman  Sinha,  learned  counsel  for

contesting respondent No. 1.   

20) Mr  Manoj  Goel,  learned  Counsel  appearing  for  the

10

Page 11

appellant while assailing the legality and correctness of the

view taken by the writ court and appellate court contended

that both the courts below erred in allowing the respondent's

writ  petition  and  quashing  the  dismissal  order  dated

16.08.1996.  

21) In  the  first  place,  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant

contended  that  no  fault  could  be  noticed  in  the  entire

departmental  proceedings,  which  eventually  resulted  in

respondent's  ouster  from  the  services  because  it  was

conducted strictly in accordance with the Rules prescribed.  

22) In  the  second  place,  his  contention  was  that  the

Principal  &  Secretary  was  duly  authorized  by  the  BOG to

initiate  departmental  proceedings  and  to  take  appropriate

action in consultation with the Chairman of the BOG against

the respondent. In support of his contention, learned counsel

placed reliance on various Resolutions passed by the BOG

from  time  to  time  and,  in  particular,  Resolutions  dated

07.12.1994, 08.06.1995, 11.03.1996, and 22.08.1996.

23) In  the  third  place,  he  contended  that  the  BOG  was

involved  in  all  the  deliberations  at  every  stage  of  the

departmental proceedings as would be clear from the minutes

11

Page 12

of meetings of the BOG and hence it can not be said that the

BOG did not take any decision or it  was not  aware of  the

proceedings or did not approve of the action taken against the

respondent by the Principal & Secretary.

24) In  the  fourth  place,  it  was  contended  that  the  entire

action in question having been approved or/and ratified by

the BOG in their last meeting held on 22.08.1996, whatever

so-called  defects  even  if  existed  in  the  departmental

proceedings  including  passing  of  the  dismissal  order  on

16.08.1996,  the  same  stood  ratified  by  the  BOG  in  their

meeting  held  on  22.08.1996  and  hence  no  fault  can  be

noticed in the proceedings.

25) In contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported

the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the two Courts

below and contended that no case is made out to interfere in

the  impugned  order.  Learned  counsel  then  elaborated  his

submissions in support of the 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.

12

Page 13

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,  as mentioned above, allowed the writ

petition holding that the impugned order of dismissal dated

16.08.1996 was, in fact. passed by the Principal & Secretary,

who had no authority to pass such order under the Rules.  It

13

Page 14

was held that the competent authority to pass the dismissal

order  under  the  Rules  was  the  BOG.  The  High  Court

accordingly set aside the order of dismissal with a direction to

grant all consequential service benefits to the respondent. In

appeal filed by the appellant, the Division Bench concurred

with  the  view  taken  by  the  Single  Judge  and  accordingly

dismissed the appellant's appeal, giving rise to filing of this

appeal by the appellant (Management).  

29) Before we proceed to appreciate the submissions, it  is

apposite to reproduce the relevant extracts of the meetings of

the BOG, to show as to how the issue of the respondent was

dealt with by the BOG:

(1)

Minutes of the Meeting held on 07.12.1994

“Item-7(a):  To  receive  a  note  of  recent  financial stalemate  created  by  Shri  Pannalal  Choudhury, Registrar  who was  also  holding the charge  of  Deputy Registrar (Accounts) and suggest remedial measures to avoid such situation in future:

The  Board  approved  the  action  taken  by  the Principal  &  Secretary,  on  the  advice  of  the  Hon’ble Chairman, BOG, regarding financial stalemate as ex-post facto.

Further,  while  discussing  various  charges  of insubordination,  dereliction  of  duty,  suppression  of facts etc. brought against and accordingly charge-sheets served to Shri Pannalal Choudhury, Registrar who was also holding the charge of Deputy Registrar (Accounts), by the Principal  & Secretary,  the  Board of  Governors took the matter with all  seriousness and directed the

14

Page 15

Principal & Secretary to take necessary legal advice for further  disciplinary  actions  in  consultation  with  the Hon’ble Chairman, BOG, REC Silchar.”

“Item-8:  To  consider  rectification  of  irregularities observed  by  A.G.  Audit  in  the  accounts  of  Regional Engg. College, Silchar.

The  Board  scrutinized  various  financial irregularities highlighted by A.G. Audit and also by the Principal & Secretary, BOG, and took the whole matter very seriously and directed the Principal & Secretary to take  legal  advice  and  draw  disciplinary  proceedings against  Shri  Pannalal  Choudhury,  Registrar  who  was also holding the charge of Deputy Registrar (Accounts).

The  Board  further  directed  the  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 against Sri Choudhury.

The Principal and Secretary accordingly took all necessary legal advice both from the High Court and the District Court Advocates duly appointed by the College

15

Page 16

and a Board of Inquiry was constituted on May 6, 1995 with  the  following  Members  for  the  purpose  of Departmental proceedings:- 1.  Presiding Officer : Dr. S.K. Das 2.  Members    : i) Dr. R. Gupta

       ii) Prof. A.I. Laskar 3. Presenting Officer : Sri Sudipta Kr. Bhattacharjee

[However, at present a new Presenting Officer Sri F.A. Talukdar, Lecturer, Deptt. Of Electrical Engg. has been appointed as Sri Sudipta Kr. Bhattacharjee has informed his inability to continue as Presenting Officer as he has applied for leave on medical ground.] The Board of Inquiry has already completed its assigned job and the report of the Board will be placed on the table for detailed discussion by the Hon’ble Members of the  Board  of  Governors  and  for  necessary  action thereafter.”

(3)

Minutes of Meeting held on 11.03.1996

“Item-6: To  decide  on  the  case  of  Shri  Pannalal Choudhury Registrar (under suspension).  

The  report  of  the  Board  of  inquiry  was  placed before  the  Board  and after  a  detailed  discussion,  the board authorized the Principal and Secretary to prepare a draft show cause notice on behalf of the Board to be served  to  Shri  Pannalal  Choudhury,  Registrar  (under suspension) for imposing the punishment and to send a copy of the same to the Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi with a request to communicate their comments, if any, within 21 days. The board also authorized the Principal & Secretary to submit the draft show cause notice after expiry of the above period of the Ministry of Human Resource Development and after taking legal advice to the Chairman, Board of Governors for serving the said show cause notice by the Board to Sri  Pannalal  Choudhury,  Registrar  (under  suspension) and to  take  necessary  action  as  the  Chairman/Board advices.”

“Item-24:  To decide on the misappropriation of college  money  by  sri  Pannalal  Choudhury  in  his capacity as Deputy Registrar (Accounts).

The Board discussed this item in relation to the

16

Page 17

item No. 6 and authorized the Principal Secretary to do the needful accordingly.”

(4)

Minutes of Meeting held on 22.08.1996

“Item-2:  To receive  a  note  on the  actions  taken and progress made on the resolutions 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

17

Page 18

dealt with the case of respondent at Item Nos. 6 and 24.

31) In our considered view, the expression  “authorization”

and  “to take necessary action as the Chairman advises”

in Item No. 6 and lastly, the expression  “to do the needful

accordingly”   in  Item  No.  24  in  the  Resolution  dated

11.03.1996  were  wide  enough  to  clothe  the  Principal  &

Secretary  with  a  power  to  pass  the  dismissal  order,  if

occasion so arises.

32) As  rightly  argued  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the

appellant,  the  Resolutions  authorizing  the  Principal  &

Secretary to pass appropriate orders rightly, did not use the

expression  “to dismiss the respondent”  because at that

point of time, the departmental inquiry was in contemplation

against the respondent. It was, therefore, not known at that

time  as  to  what  would  be  the  outcome  of  departmental

proceedings  and  secondly  use  of  such  expression  in  the

Resolution before the start of departmental inquiry could have

been  construed  as  prejudging  the  issue  against  the

respondent thereby indicating existence of bias attitude of the

Members of the Board of Governors towards the respondent

and lastly as said above, the three expressions used in the

18

Page 19

Resolution did clothe the Principal & Secretary with the power

to pass appropriate orders which included the order imposing

punishment of dismissal as  prescribed in the Rules, against

the  respondent  depending  upon  the  outcome  of  the

departmental inquiry and subject to grant of final approval by

the  BOG.  Indeed  the  expression   “and to  take  necessary

action as the Chairman/Board advises”   and "to do the

needful"  used in the Resolution were very apt words rightly

used in the resolutions for taking intended action which was

in contemplation, against the respondent.   

33) In the light of aforesaid discussion and keeping in mind

the contents of the Resolutions, it is difficult to agree with the

view taken by the High Court that the BOG did not pass the

dismissal  order  but  it  was  passed  by  the  Principal  &

Secretary.  In other words, keeping in view the contents of the

four  Resolutions,  we  have  no  hesitation  to  hold  that  the

dismissal  order  dated  16.08.1996 was  passed  by  the  BOG

and the Principal & Secretary only signed the order for and on

behalf of the BOG on the strength of authorization made in

his favour by the BOG vide Resolution dated 11.03.1996.

34) That  apart,  the  issue  in  question  could  be  examined

19

Page 20

from  yet  another  angle  by  applying  the  law  relating  to

"Ratification" which was not taken note of by the High 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

20

Page 21

terminating  the  services  of  General  Manager  was  invalid.

However, the Board of Directors then convened subsequent

meeting and in this meeting affirmed the earlier resolution,

which had been passed in improper meeting. On these facts,

the Court held,

“Even if  it be assumed that the telegram and the letter terminating the services of the appellant by the Chairman was in pursuance of the invalid resolution of the  Board  of  Directors  passed  on  16-12-1953  to terminate  his  services,  it  would  not  follow  that  the action  of  the  Chairman  could  not  be  ratified  in  a regularly convened meeting of the Board of Directors. The point is that even assuming that the Chairman was not legally authorised to terminate the services of the appellant, he was acting on behalf of the Company in doing so, because, he purported to act in pursuance of the  invalid  resolution.  Therefore,  it  was  open  to  a regularly constituted meeting of the Board of Directors to ratify that action which, though unauthorised, was done  on  behalf  of  the  Company.  Ratification  would always relate back to the date of the act ratified and so it must be held that the services of the appellant were validly terminated on 17-12-1953.”

38) This view was approved by this Court in High Court of

Judicature for Rajasthan Vs.  P.P. Singh & Anr.   (2003) 4

SCC 239.   

39) The aforesaid principle of law of ratification was again

applied by this Court in  Maharashtra State Mining Corpn.

Vs. Sunil (2006) 5 SCC 96. In this case, the respondent was

an employee of the appellant Corporation.  Consequent to a

departmental  enquiry,  he  was  dismissed  by  the  Managing

21

Page 22

Director of the appellant.  The respondent then filed a writ

petition before the High Court.  During the pendency of the

writ  petition,  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  appellant

Corporation passed a resolution ratifying the impugned action

of the Managing Director and also empowering him to take

decision in respect of the officers and staff in the grade of pay

the maximum of which did not exceed Rs. 4700 p.m.  Earlier,

the Managing Director had powers only in respect of  those

posts where the maximum pay did not exceed Rs.1900 p.m.

The respondent at the relevant time was drawing more than

Rs.1800 p.m. Therefore, at the relevant time, the Managing

Director  was  incompetent  to  dismiss  the  respondent.

Accordingly, the High Court held the order of dismissal to be

invalid.   The  High  Court  further  held  that  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

22

Page 23

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  Director  had  been ratified  by  the  Board  of  Directors  such  ratification related back to the date of the order and validated it.”

40) Applying  the  aforementioned  law of  ratification  to  the

facts at hand, even if  we assume for the sake of argument

that the order of dismissal dated 16.08.1996 was passed by

the Principal & Secretary who had neither any authority to

pass  such  order  under  the  Rules  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

23

Page 24

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.

41) 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.

42) In the light of  foregoing discussion, 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.

43) As already mentioned above, no other point was urged

by the respondent in the writ petition and also in intra court

appeal  of  the appellant by filing cross objection therein for

assailing the legality and correctness of the dismissal order

on other grounds except the one which we have decided. It is,

therefore, not necessary to go into any other question.

44) In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and

is  hereby  allowed.  The  impugned  order  is  set  aside.  As  a

24

Page 25

consequence, the writ petition filed by the respondent stands

dismissed. No costs.

                   …….….……............................J. [VIKRAMAJIT SEN]

                              …………..................................J.

[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

New Delhi; July 01, 2015.

25

Page 26

ITEM NO.1C               COURT NO.12               SECTION XIV (For judgment)                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal  No(s).  5070/2008 NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & ANR.            Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS PANNALAL CHOUDHURY & ANR.                          Respondent(s)

Date : 01/07/2015 This appeal was called on for pronouncement  of judgment today.

For Appellant(s)   Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR                       For Respondent(s) Mr. Renjith. B, AOR                   M/s Corporate Law Group, Advs.

Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  Abhay  Manohar  Sapre  pronounced  the reportable judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen and His Lordship.  

The appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed  in  terms of the signed reportable judgment.

(R.NATARAJAN)        (SNEH LATA SHARMA)  Court Master       Court Master

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)                           

26