Termination by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority violates Article 311(1) and is invalid.

The applicant, an employee of the National Research Laboratory for Conservation of Cultural Property, challenged the orders dated 19.06.2018 and 20.06.2018, including the notice terminating his service. He sought quashing of the termination, reinstatement from 19.06.2018, and consequential benefits.

The respondents contended that the Head of Office was the appointing and disciplinary authority for Group-C employees and that Shri B.V. Kharbade, who signed the termination order, held the offices of Director General and Head of Office when the applicant was appointed and terminated; therefore, the termination did not violate Article 311 of the Constitution.

The applicant argued that he had been appointed by the Director General but terminated by the Head of Office, an authority subordinate to the appointing authority, contrary to Article 311(1).

On examining the appointment and termination orders, the Tribunal found that the appointment order was issued by the Director General, whereas the termination order was passed by the Head of Office.

1. Whether the applicant’s termination by the Head of Office violated Article 311(1) of the Constitution because he had been appointed by the Director General.

2. Whether the impugned termination orders were liable to be quashed and the applicant reinstated with consequential service benefits.

3. Whether the respondents could be granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against the applicant in accordance with the applicable rules.

The Tribunal primarily applied Article 311(1) of the Constitution, which prohibits dismissal or removal of a civil servant by an authority subordinate to the authority by which the person was appointed.

Article 311(2) further requires dismissal or removal to ordinarily follow an inquiry in which the employee is informed of the charges and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard, subject to the constitutional exceptions contained in its provisos.

The Tribunal did not finally adjudicate the applicant’s separate contention concerning termination under the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.

The Tribunal compared the authority identified in the appointment order with that identified in the termination order. It found that the applicant had been appointed by the Director General, NRLC, but terminated by the Head of Office, NRLC.

Applying Article 311(1), the Tribunal held that termination by the Head of Office amounted to removal by an authority subordinate to the authority that had appointed the applicant.

The respondents’ assertion that Shri B.V. Kharbade had held both offices and had signed both orders did not cure the defect because the termination order was issued in his capacity as Head of Office, whereas the appointment order reflected appointment by the Director General.

Consequently, the termination was held constitutionally invalid.

The respondents were directed to reinstate the applicant forthwith with all consequential service benefits, except back wages.

The competent authority was granted liberty to proceed afresh against the applicant in accordance with the extant rules, with such proceedings to be completed within six months from receipt of the certified copy of the order.

No order as to costs was made, and the connected miscellaneous applications were disposed of.