Back
Appointing Authority Wears Two Hats: Calcutta HC Greenlights Dismissal with Higher Appeal Backup
In a significant ruling for government service discipline, the 's Circuit Bench at Port Blair has overturned a decision, affirming that an appointing authority like the can impose major penalties such as dismissal—even if designated as the appellate authority—provided a superior forum like the exists for further appeal. The Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Smita Das De delivered the verdict in WP.CT/18/2026 on , involving the against employee Dharam Raj.
From Transfer Order to Tribunal Battle: The Road to Dismissal
Dharam Raj, a Lower Division Clerk appointed in , faced disciplinary action after repeatedly defying transfer orders to the in 2016. Charges included failing to report for duty post-transfer (Order No. 1515 dated ), seeking unauthorized leave without documents, submitting false duty reports, and ignoring a High Court order from , to rejoin as LDC. Despite public notices and memos, he abstained.
Two charge memos were issued in 2016-2017 by the . An inquiry found him guilty, leading to dismissal by on , upheld on appeal . The Tribunal quashed this in OA 351/1053/2018 (), citing lack of separate appellate forum. Prior proceedings, including a 2022 Tribunal quash (remanded by High Court in 2023), set the stage for this writ.
Key questions: Was the the appointing authority under ? Could he impose punishment despite the 2009 Gazette naming as such and as appellate? Did this deny ?
Petitioners' Defense: Hierarchy Trumps Designation
The Administration, via senior counsel , argued was the true appointing authority per and 2004 orders explicitly naming him, trumping the 2009 notification under 's "highest authority" clause. bars only subordinates from dismissal, not the appointing authority itself ( ).
They stressed allows Disciplinary Authority () to delegate inquiry/charge issuance to subordinates like , as affirmed in State of Jharkhand v. Rukma Kesh Mishra (2025 SCC OnLine SC 676). Appeal lay to , a fact Raj himself used. No , as prior Tribunal order was effectively set aside on remand. Punishment fit repeated insubordination.
Respondent's Pushback: No Appeal, No Justice
Dharam Raj's counsel countered: 2009 Gazette made the authority; 's overreach denied appeal forum, violating . Dismissal was disproportionate for "minor" absence. applied as prior Tribunal quash () wasn't explicitly overturned by 2023 High Court remand. Appointment letter signed by sealed it.
Decoding Authority: Highest Rank Rules, Precedents Seal It
The Bench meticulously parsed : Appointing authority is the highest among possible ones— over , per appointment order. safeguards against subordinates but empowers the appointer ( , AIR 1958 SC 36; State of Jharkhand ).
Inquiry delegation valid under (2)/(4); no need for appointer to micromanage ( State of Jharkhand ). On appeals, the Court parted ways with stricter views ( Chandrasekharan v. State of Kerala , AIR 1964 Ker 87), stressing livelihood stakes demand effective forums—but filled the gap ( Monmatha Nath Ghosh , 1957 SCC OnLine Cal 232). Raj's own appeal to Lt Governor undercut his denial claim.
Merits intact: Tribunal affirmed specific charges, no procedural lapse, evidence robust (inquiry report detailed defiance). No perversity; limited ( B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India , (1995) 6 SCC 749). dismissed as remand implicitly vacated prior order.
As noted in legal circles, this aligns with the High Court's stance that
"an appointing authority is not precluded from imposing the penalty of dismissal merely because it also functions as the appellate authority, so long as a higher forum of appeal is available."
Court's Sharp Insights
"out of the different authorities mentioned [in Rule 2(a)], whichever authority is the highest would be considered to be the Appointing Authority."
" ... does not debar the Appointing Authority himself from [imposing punishment]."
"the ... is by default the Appellate Authority against orders passed by all subordinate officials."
"the respondent himself, after having preferred an appeal before the ... takes the point before this Court that he was deprived of an appellate forum."
Verdict Restores Discipline, Sets Service Precedent
The writ was partly allowed, quashing the Tribunal's order and upholding dismissal. No costs. This reinforces administrative hierarchy in Union Territories, clarifying that rigid designations yield to constitutional/ rule-based "highest authority" tests. Future cases may see fewer challenges to appointer-led punishments where superior appeals exist, streamlining discipline while preserving checks.
