KRISHNA KUMAR versus DIVISIONAL ASSISTANT ELECTRICAL ENGINEER CENTRAL RAILWAY AND ORS.

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 50 · Decided: 17-07-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
D 
E 
so 
KRISHNA KUMAR 
v. 
DIVISIONAL ASSISTANT ELECTRICAL ENGINEER 
CENTRAL RAILWAY AND ORS. 
July 17, 1979 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., S. MURTAZA FAZAL Au 
AND E. S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950, Article 311(1)-Power to renzove an em-
plo:ree rests only witli thl' person who appointed hini-A delegate's <;fatus is 
not enhanced to that of the delegator by virtue of delegation of power of 
appoint111ent-Date of appoi11tn1ent is the starting point when the ccnstitu-
tional guarantee under Art. 311 (I) be conies available to the person hofding 
a civil post. 
The appellrult who was appointed as a Train Lighting Inspector, Nagpur 
on July 11, 1974 by the Chief El'ectrical Engineer \\'as removed from service 
by respondent No. 1; the Divisional Assistant 
Engineer, Central Railway 
Nagpur by his order August 31, 1976. Tue Writ Petition filed by the appel-
lant in the Bombay High Court challenging the order of removal \Vas 
dis~ 
miss'ed summarily by a Division Bench of th~ Court. 
Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court 
HELD : 1. The order of removal is- in patent violation of the provisions 
of Article 311(1) of the Constitution. [53C] 
2. Art. 311(1) of the Constitution provides that no 
person 
who 
is 
a 
member of a civil service of the Union or an all India 
service or a civil 
service of a St&te or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be 
dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was 
appointed. [52A] 
F 
3. Whether or not an authority is subordinate in rank to another has to be 
G 
H 
determined with referen~e to the state of affairs existing on the date of appoint .. 
ment. 
It is at that point of time that the cons.titutional guarante'e under Art. 
311(1) becomes available to the person holding, for example. a 
civil 
post 
under the Un'ion Government that he shall not be removed or dismis~d by 
an authority subordinate to that which appointed him. 
[52 F-GJ 
4. Delegation of the power to make a particular appointment does not 
enhance or improve the hierarchical status of the delegate. 
An officer subor-
dinate to another will not become his equal in rank by reason of his coming 
to po~sess son1e of the pO\vers of that another. 
[53 A-Bl 
The l)ivision<A Assistant Electrical Engineer in the instant case. does not 
cease to be subordinate in rank to the 
Chief Electrical Engineer 
merely 
because the latter's power to make appointments to certain posts has been 
delegated to him the subsequent authorisation made in fa.vour of respondoo.t, 
in regard to making appointments to the post held by the appellant cannot 
confer upon respondent 1 the power to remove him. 
On the date of the 
• 
KRISHNA KUMAR v. ELECTRICAL ENGINEER (Chandrachud, C.J.) 
5 I 
appellant's appointment as a Train Lighting Inspector, respondent 1 had no 
A 
power to make that appointment. 
He cannot have, therefore, the power to 
remove him. [52H, 53 A-BJ 
Clv!L APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 755 of 1978. 
'& 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Order dated 21-10-1976 of the 
Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in S.C.A. No. 4260/76. 
B 
_, 
R. K. Garg, Edward Faleire, V. J. Francis and D. K. Garg for the 
• 
Appellant. 
R. P. Bhat and Girish Chandra for the Respondents. 
The Jndgment of the Court was delivered by 
CHANDRACHUD, C.J. The appellant, Krishna Kumar, was ap-
pointed on May 30, 1966 as an Apprentice Mechanic (Electrical) 
after selection by the Railway Service Commission and on the com-
pletion of his training period, he was appointed as a Train Examiner 
(Electrical). On July 11, 1974 he was appointed as a Train Light-
ing Inspector, Nagpur under an order passed by the Chief Electrical 
Engineer. That the order of appointment was made by the C.E.E. 
is undisputed and indeed there can be no controversy over it. 
The 
list of officer declared to be heads of departments shows that Chief 
Electrica.l Engineers are heads of their departments. 
By an order 
dated August 31, 1976, the appellant was removed from service by 
respondent 1, the Divisional Assistant Engineer, · Central Railway, 
Nagpur. 
The appellant thereupon filed a Writ Petition (No. 4260 of 1976) 
in the Bombay High Court to challenge 
the order of removal. 
A 
Division Bench of the Nagpur Bench of the High Court dismissed the 
Writ Petition summarily on October 21, 1976. Being aggrieved by that 
order the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave. 
The Special Leave Petition came up 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.