In Civil Appeal No. 1320 of 2010 -SC- ‘Standing orders’ take precedence over ‘general rules’ in disciplinary matters: Supreme Court
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice C.T. Ravikumar & Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia [29-11-2023]

Read Order: Union of India & Ors V. K. Suri Babu & Ors

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, December 1, 2023: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has upheld the Andhra Pradesh High Court's ruling that standing orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (1946 Act) will take precedence over the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (CCA Rules 1965) for disciplinary proceedings against workmen.

In the matter at hand, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, had allowed the writ petition of the respondent, setting aside the Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) order dated 18.03.2008. The CAT had upheld the initiation of disciplinary proceedings by the Nuclear Fuel Complex-Hyderabad (NFC) against the respondent under the CCA Rules 1965.

The key issue was whether disciplinary proceedings against the respondent, acknowledged as a workman, should be initiated under the CCA Rules 1965 or the certified Standing Orders for NFC-Hyderabad under the 1946 Act.

The factual matrix of the case was that the respondent had been appointed as a 'helper' in the Nuclear Fuel Complex (NFC), a unit under the Department of Atomic Energy, in the 1970s. In 2003, he received a memorandum alleging a false declaration regarding his Class VI certificate, initiating disciplinary action under the CCA Rules 1965. The respondent contested, asserting the genuineness of his certificate and argued that disciplinary proceedings should be governed by the Standing Orders, not the CCA Rules 1965. The CAT dismissed his plea, relying on his appointment order and a departmental circular. The respondent had challenged this in a writ petition, resulting in the High Court setting aside the CAT's order and quashing the disciplinary proceedings.

A three-judge bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia observed the distinction between standing orders and the CCA Rules. The bench highlighted that standing orders, as mandated by the 1946 Act, were a set of rules that had to be prepared by industrial establishments employing 100 or more workmen. These standing orders were required to cover all matters relating to the employment of workmen as per the schedule of the 1946 Act and needed certification by the relevant authority. The objective of the 1946 Act was to ensure certainty in the service conditions of workmen and to place the responsibility upon employers to establish fair conditions of industrial employment, including disciplinary proceedings against workmen. The bench emphasized that standing orders were to be strictly followed and could not be ignored, modified, or changed except in accordance with the law.

On the other hand, the CCA Rules, 1965 were general service rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, applicable to employees of the Central Government. The CCA Rules were not specific to workmen and were applicable to all employees who worked under the Central Government.

The bench also observed that the standing orders, covered a whole range of activities related to a workman in an industrial establishment, including his working hours, the facilities to be given to a workman, his duties and responsibilities, and even minor activities. There was hardly any area not covered under these standing orders. Another important feature of the standing orders was that it was entirely focused on the activities, nature of work of a workman, and the treatment he deserved in relation to the employer and the duties towards his employer. All these were comprehensively laid down. The CCA Rules, 1965 did not comprehensively cover the service conditions of a workman as a standing order did.

The bench noted that in the present case, there was no evidence or documentation presented to indicate that the Government of India, under Section 13B of the 1946 Act, had issued a notification clearly stating its intention to apply the CCA Rules, 1965, for specific matters, and not the standing orders. In the absence of such notification, the bench found no fault with the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

The bench further emphasized that it was a well-established legal principle that General Rules, such as the CCA Rules, should only be applied when Special Rules fail to address certain matters. In this case, the bench pointed out that the CCA Rules, being General Rules applicable to all government servants, should not have been invoked when the Standing Orders of the Department had clearly outlined a procedure for disciplinary proceedings. The bench concluded that there was no justification for the Department to initiate disciplinary proceedings under the CCA Rules in such circumstances.

Citing the precedent in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Petroleum Coal Labour Union & Ors. [LQ/SC/2015/611], the bench emphasized that, for the Corporation to implement provisions affecting the service conditions of its employees, it was imperative to first modify the Certified Standing Orders through the prescribed procedure under Section 10 of the 1946 Act.

Thus, the Court affirmed that the service conditions of the respondents would be governed by the 'Standing Orders' concerning disciplinary proceedings. 'Standing Orders,' being special rules, would take precedence over any other general rule, including CCA Rules, 1965. The Court emphasized that the 'Standing Orders' would prevail until modified under Section 10 of the 1946 Act, and in this case, no such modification had been made by NFC, Hyderabad.

With the above said observations and discussions, the Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the order dated 14.10.2008 passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Additionally, the Court vacated the order of status quo granted on 02.03.2009.