A Disciplinary Authority equivalent in rank to the Appointing Authority is competent to impose removal from service.

The applicant was appointed as a Commercial Clerk in Eastern Railway on compassionate grounds in 1982

Following a disciplinary proceeding initiated for major penalty in 2001, he was removed from service by the Divisional Commercial Manager (DCM) on 17.06.2009

This order followed several rounds of litigation (O.A. 101383/2015, O.A. 746/2016, and O.A. 1204/2019) wherein the Tribunal repeatedly directed the Appellate Authority to pass reasoned orders regarding the competence of the Disciplinary Authority and the merits of the removal

The applicant challenged the Speaking Order dated 21.09.2023, contending that since his appointment was approved by the General Manager, only the General Manager (or an authority of equivalent rank) was competent to remove him, making the DCM’s order legally unsustainable

1. Whether the Divisional Commercial Manager (DCM) was the competent authority to impose the penalty of removal from service upon the applicant

2. Whether the disciplinary proceedings and the subsequent removal order adhered to the principles of natural justice and the statutory rules

The court primarily applied the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, specifically Schedule II, which outlines the disciplinary powers of various grades of Railway Officers over non-gazetted staff

It relied on the principle that the "Appointing Authority," or an authority of equivalent rank or higher, is competent to impose major penalties like removal under Rule 6

The court applied the standard of judicial review in disciplinary matters as established in Shri Parma Nanda v. State of Haryana, which restricts Tribunals from interfering with the findings of an Inquiry Officer or the adequacy of penalty unless the decision is arbitrary, perverse, or mala fide

The Tribunal examined the applicant's claim that the General Manager was his appointing authority due to the nature of compassionate appointments. It clarified that while the General Manager’s approval is required for compassionate appointments, the actual "Appointing Authority" is determined by the grade of the post and the officer who issued the appointment letter

Evidence showed the applicant was appointed by the Senior Personnel Officer (SPO). Under Schedule II of the 1968 Rules, the DCM is equivalent in rank to the SPO; thus, the DCM possessed the requisite legal competence to act as the Disciplinary Authority and impose removal

Regarding the merits, the Tribunal found that the procedure was strictly followed: an Enquiry Officer was appointed, the applicant was given the opportunity to represent against the inquiry report, and both the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities passed reasoned orders after considering the facts

The Tribunal concluded there were no grounds for judicial interference as the principles of natural justice were satisfied. Consequently, the Original Application was dismissed without costs