The dismissal of a civil servant by an authority subordinate to the one that appointed him is illegal and void.

D.Falshaw, J.

1. This second appeal which has been referred by a Single Judge to a larger Bench has arisen in the following circumstances :

Gurumukh Singh Appellant was appointed as an Assistant Sub-Inspectof in the Punjab Police in Multan district on the 24th of July 1945. His appointment was made by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Multan Range. He was placed on two years probation as from the 1st of April 1946. After independence in 1947 he was absorbed into the Police Force of Delhi State in which he was appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspector by the then Deputy Inspector General on the 22nd of September 1947. He was confirmed in this rank by the Inspector General of Police on the 29th of November 1948 as from the 1st of April 1948.

2. It seems that an allegation of corruption was made against him in 1949 and alter an inquiry had been held against him by an officer named Diwan Chand Bhatia with the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police he was dismissed from service by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Delhi, on the 11th of May 1950. His appeal was dismissed by the Inspector General of Police.

3. He instituted the suit from which this appeal has arisen on April 1953 claiming a declaration that his dismissal was illegal and inoperative on certain grounds and that he was, therefore a member of the Delhi Police Force holding the rank which he held on the 11th of May 19SO. He also claimed Rs. 336A on account of arrears of salary.

4. The nature of the grounds on which the suit was based can be seen from the issues framed by the trial Court as follows:

1. Whether the plaintiff was dismissed from service by an officer subordinate in rank to the appointing authority? If so, to what effect?

2. Whether reasonable opportunity was not afforded to the plaintiff to defend himself in the inquiry which resulted in his dismissal ?

3. Whether the officer who held the inquiry was not competent to hold the same and to what effect ?.

4. Whether the departmental inquiry against the plaintiff and his dismissal from service were wrongful and malicious and to what effect 7.

5. Whether the suit is within time?

6. Relief.

5. The three points decided against the plaintiff by the trial Court were on issues (2), (3) and (4), it being held that he had reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the inquiry, that the officer who held the inquiry was competent to do so and that the inquiry and his dismissal were not malicious. It was however, held in his favour that the suit was within time and that his dismissal could not stand because the order dismissing him was passed by an officer subordinate to the officer who had appointed him. He was accordingly granted a decree for the declaration prayed for and for Rs. 336/- on account of salary.

6. The Governments appeal against this decree was decided in May 1956 by the learned District Judge Mr. S.B. Capoor (now a Judge of this Court). He upheld the findings of the lower court which were against the plaintiff, but reversed the finding on the first issue and held that the dismissal was not bad as having been made by an officer subordinate to the officer who had appointed the plaintiff. He accordingly accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit. It is unfortunate that although the learned Single Judge who thought it necessary to refer the case to a larger Bench passed his order on the 25th of August 1960, the matter has taken so long to reach the Division Bench.

7. One of the grounds which impelied the learned single Judge to refer the matter was a new point raised before him in the form of an argument that in fact the appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Delhi Police Force had not been made by the Deputy Inspector General, but by the Inspector General. This point was raised to strengthen the plaintiffs argument on the first issue and perhaps to meet the grounds on which the learned District Judge had decided the case against him. The argument is that although he was