2026 Supreme(Cal) 215

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, SMITA DAS DE, JJ.
The Lieutenant Governor And Others - Petitioner
Vs.
Dharam Raj - Respondent
WP.CT No.18 of 2026
Decided On : 28-04-2026

An appointing authority may validly impose a dismissal penalty provided that the governing disciplinary proceedings are conducted by a competent authority. The absence of a formal appellate forum is not a ground for invalidation if an established administrative hierarchy provides a higher authority for appeal purposes.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, Article 311; Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Rules 2, 12, 14 - Dismissal from service - Power of appointing authority to impose penalty - Initiation of disciplinary proceedings by subordinate - Requirement of appellate forum. (Paras 3, 9, 31, 35)

(B) Disciplinary proceedings - Scope - The appointing authority is empowered to impose the punishment of dismissal regardless of whether the inquiry and charge framing were conducted by a subordinate officer. The disciplinary inquiry functions are distinct from the final act of imposition of penalty. (Paras 35, 36)

(C) Appellate Remedy - The existence of an administrative hierarchy providing for an appeal to the highest executive within the organization satisfies the legal requirement for an appellate forum, even where the appointing authority passes the original order. (Paras 49, 50)

Facts of the case:
The respondent sought the quashing of a disciplinary dismissal order passed by the appointing authority, contending that the authority had illegally arrogated powers and deprived the employee of a meaningful appellate forum. The tribunal initially set aside the punishment on the grounds that it was procedurally improper, despite confirming that the inquiry itself was conducted without procedural lapses and the charges were specific.

Findings of Court:
The constitutional protection provided to civil servants ensures only that they are not dismissed by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority. Rule provisions permit the initiation of inquiries by subordinate officers. The argument regarding the deprivation of an appellate forum is unsustainable given the existence of an administrative superior having the power to review the disciplinary order.

Issues: Whether the appointing authority is barred from imposing a major penalty if it theoretically also functions as the appellate authority for lower-rank penalty orders, and whether disciplinary proceedings initiated by a lower-ranked officer regarding the charge memoranda are invalid.

Ratio Decidendi: Constitutional law mandates that a civil servant cannot be dismissed by an official subordinate to their appointing authority. Delegation of the inquiry and charge-sheet issuance to subordinate authorities is legally permissible and standard. The existence of a higher administrative hierarchical level to which an appeal can be filed renders the disciplinary process compliant with natural justice, precluding claims of prejudice regarding the appellate forum.

Result: Petition allowed; judgment of the tribunal set aside; order of dismissal affirmed.