UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus HASMUKHBHAI HIRABHAI RANA

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 348 · Decided: 23-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
HASMUKHBHAI HIRABHAI RANA 
NOVEMBER 23, 2006 
B 
[ARIJITPASAYAT ANDLOKESHWARSINGH PANTA,JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Departmental proceeding can be initiated by a person lower in rank 
C than appointing authority-But final order can only be passed by appointing 
authority or authority higher to him. 
On 1.1.1990, a letter was issued to the respondent informing him that 
on successful completion of the course, he may be offered an appointment in 
D the temporary cadre on the regular scales of pay. Subsequently after the 
completion of training, on 13.6.1990 a letter was issued by the Divisional 
Commercial Manager ('DCM'). A charge sheet was issued on 1.6.1993 
making allegations of misappropriation. After enquiry, the DCM passed an 
order of removal from service. Respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate 
Authority which was dismissed. The Revisional Authority i.e. ADRM also 
E dismissed the revision. Respondent filed petition before the CAT praying for 
quashing of the order of removal whereby it was held that the DCM and Senior 
DCM who had acted as disciplinary authority as well as the Appellate 
Authority were lower in rank than the appointing authority. Accordingly the 
order was set aside. Aggrieved appellant filed the writ petition before the High 
Court which was dismissed. 
F 
G 
H 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the order dated 1.1.1990 
was the selection order and in fact the appointment order is dated 13.6.1990. 
Selection order was passed by the DRM while the appointment order was 
passed by the DCM who had acted as the disciplinary authority. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. The departmental proceeding can be initiated by a person 
lower in rank than appointing authority. But the final order can be passed 
only by the appointing authority or an authority higher to him. 1350-Hl 
348 
U.O.l. v. HASMUKHBHAI HIRABHAI RANA [PASAYAT, J.] 
349 
State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Shardul Singh, 119701 1 SCC 108 A 
and State of UP. and Anr. v. Chandrapal Singh and Anr., 12003) 4 SCC 670, 
relied on. 
2. The respondent has been reinstated in the mean time but what appears 
not to have been done is to grant an opportunity to the appellants so that the 
appropriate authority can pass the final order in the departmental proceeding. B 
The distinction now sought to be made between the orders dated 1.1.1990 and 
13.6.1990 does not appear to have been highlighted either before CAT or the 
High Court. It is only before this Court that such a plea has been raised. 
1351-B-C) 
3. In the aforesaid background the orders of the CAT and the High Court C 
are modified to the extent that DRM can consider all relevant aspects after 
granting opportunity to the respondent on the basis of the enquiry report 
submitted. (351-C-DJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.5 I 68 of2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated i'9-3-2004 of the High Court of 
Gujarat at Ahmedabad in S.C.A. No. 14944/2003. 
T.S. Doabia, Sunita Sharma, D.S. Mahra and Shreekant N. Terdal for the 
Appellants. 
R. Venkataramani, Kiran Shah, Ashok Panigrahi and Satya Mitra Garg 
for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. Leave granted. 
Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a 
Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by 
the appellants-Union of India and its functionaries. The orders passed by the 
Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench (in short the 'CAT') in 
D 
E 
F 
the Original Application No. I 70of1997 and Review Application No.32 of2003 G 
were upheld. The only issue which was raised by the Union of India was that 
CAT was not justified in holding that the order of dismissal was passed by 
an authority lower in rank than the appointing authority. 
The factual position in a nutshell is as follows: 
H 
350 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A 
On I. I .1990 a letter was issued to the respondent informing him that on 
successful completion of the course which included successful completion of 
practical training on division and on the respondent passing the prescribed 
Hindi test he may be offered an appointment in the temporary cadre on the 
regular scales of pay. Subsequently after the completion of training, on 
B 13.6.1990 a letter was issued by the Divisional Commercial Manager (in short 
the 'DCM') Vadodara. A charge sheet was issued on l.6.1993 making 
alle

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