1979 (7) TMI 251 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant was removed from service by an authority subordinate to the one that appointed him.
2. Whether the Divisional Assistant Electrical Engineer is subordinate in rank to the Chief Electrical Engineer.
3. Whether the delegation of power to make appointments enhances the hierarchical status of the delegate.
4. Whether the order of removal is in violation of Article 311(1) of the Constitution.

Analysis:
The appellant, appointed as a Train Lighting Inspector, was removed from service by the Divisional Assistant Electrical Engineer. The central issue is whether the Divisional Assistant Electrical Engineer is subordinate to the Chief Electrical Engineer, who appointed the appellant. The Court established that the Divisional Assistant Electrical Engineer was indeed subordinate in rank to the appointing authority, the Chief Electrical Engineer, at the time of the appellant's appointment. This hierarchy is crucial in determining the validity of the removal under Article 311(1) of the Constitution, ensuring no removal by a subordinate authority.

The respondents argued that the power to appoint the Train Lighting Inspector was delegated to the Divisional Assistant Electrical Engineer, justifying his authority to remove the appellant. However, the Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the hierarchical status is determined at the time of appointment, not by subsequent delegations. Merely possessing appointment powers does not elevate the delegate's rank or authority, as the Divisional Assistant Electrical Engineer remained subordinate to the Chief Electrical Engineer.

The Court highlighted that delegation of appointment power does not alter the relative rank of officers. The Divisional Assistant Electrical Engineer does not attain equal rank to the Chief Electrical Engineer due to delegated powers. Consequently, the removal by the Divisional Assistant Electrical Engineer, a subordinate authority at the time of appointment, was deemed unconstitutional under Article 311(1).

In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and declaring the removal order as unconstitutional and ineffective. The appellant was deemed to be in service until proper government action is taken. The respondents were directed to bear the costs of the appeal. This judgment underscores the importance of adherence to hierarchical authority in matters of appointment and removal in civil services.