Disciplinary order of removal passed by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority is legally unsustainable.

The applicant, appointed on compassionate grounds as a Token Porter in the Moradabad Division of Northern Railway, was removed from service on May 11, 2015, following a period of unauthorized absence from May 2, 2012, to October 25, 2013.

The removal order was passed by the Assistant Operation Manager (AOM).

The applicant’s subsequent appeal and revision petition were rejected by the Divisional Operations Manager and the Senior Divisional Operation Manager, respectively.

A petition to the President of India was also rejected by the Divisional Railway Manager.

The applicant approached the Tribunal primarily challenging the competency of the AOM to issue the removal order, asserting that he was not the appointing authority.

1. Whether the Assistant Operation Manager was the competent authority to appoint the applicant on compassionate grounds or possessed the power to remove him from service

The Tribunal applied Rule 31 and Schedule-II of the Railway Servants (Discipline Appeal) Rules, 1968, which specify the disciplinary powers of various grades of Railway Officers.

Railway Board guidelines (Annexure A-8), which stipulate that the power to make compassionate appointments is vested in the General Manager, who may re-delegate such power for Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ staff only to Divisional Railway Managers (DRMs) or Heads of extra-Divisional Units in the SA Grade.

Under Schedule-II, Note (1), only the Appointing Authority or an equivalent/higher authority is competent to impose major penalties such as removal (Clauses vii to ix of Rule 6).

The Tribunal examined the service records and found that while the appointment letter was signed by an Assistant Personnel Officer, it was issued based on the sanction of the Divisional Personnel Officer, not the AOM.

Regarding the AOM’s disciplinary powers, the Tribunal noted that Schedule-II limits his authority to minor penalties and suspension, specifically excluding the power to remove staff unless they are the Appointing Authority.

Since the General Manager or DRM/SA Grade officers are the only authorities competent to sanction compassionate appointments under the extant rules, the AOM—a lower-tier officer—did not qualify as the Appointing Authority or an equivalent rank.

Consequently, the AOM lacked the legal jurisdiction to inflict the major penalty of removal.

The Tribunal quashed the chargesheet, punishment order, appellate order, and revisionary order. The respondents were directed to reinstate the applicant with all consequential benefits within six weeks, while reserving liberty for the respondents to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings in accordance with relevant rules.