2006 (4) TMI 260 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the removal of the respondent from service was by a competent authority? Whether the appellant had been removed from the service by an authority subordinate to that which had appointed him in violation of article 311(1) of the Constitution? Held that - Appeal allowed. The right under article 311(1) is vested in an employee on the date of his appointment and that subsequent authorisation of any subordinate officer would not confer the power on such subordinate officer to remove the employee. Secondly, merely because the subordinate officer was vested with the power to appoint would not make him equal in rank with the officer making the appointment. In other words, the Divisional Engineer did not cease to be subordinate to the Chief Electrical Engineer merely because the latter s power to make appointment to the post had been delegated to him.

Summary

Issues:
1. Competency of the authority in terminating the respondent's services.
2. Validity of the order of dismissal passed by the Managing Director.
3. Ratification of the Managing Director's order by the Board of Directors.
4. Applicability of past legal judgments on the current case.

Issue 1: Competency of the authority in terminating the respondent's services
The respondent was dismissed from service by the Managing Director, which was challenged on the grounds that the Managing Director did not have the authority to take such action. The High Court held that the Managing Director was not competent to terminate the respondent's services, as he exceeded the pay grade limit set by the Board of Directors. The High Court set aside the dismissal order, directing the appellant to reinstate the respondent with full benefits.

Issue 2: Validity of the order of dismissal passed by the Managing Director
The appellant argued that the High Court's decision contradicted previous legal judgments. The Supreme Court emphasized that an act by a legally incompetent authority is invalid but can be rectified through ratification by the competent authority. Citing past cases, the Court explained that ratification validates an invalid act retrospectively. In this case, the Managing Director's order of dismissal was later ratified by the Board of Directors, making it valid from the date of the original order.

Issue 3: Ratification of the Managing Director's order by the Board of Directors
The Court highlighted that the Managing Director's dismissal order was ratified by the Board of Directors, who had the authority to terminate the respondent's services. The ratification related back to the date of the original order, validating it. The Court distinguished this case from a previous case where empowerment was granted after the operative date, emphasizing the significance of ratification in retrospectively validating actions.

Issue 4: Applicability of past legal judgments on the current case
The respondent relied on a previous case to argue against the ratification of the dismissal order. The Court clarified that the previous case involved empowerment granted after the operative date, unlike the current case, which involved ratification. The Court upheld the dismissal order, quashing the High Court's decision and emphasizing the importance of ratification in validating past actions.