Supreme Court: Article 311 bars removal only by an authority junior to who actually appointed you

The Supreme Court set aside an Allahabad High Court order that had reinstated a Railway Protection Special Force constable removed from service in 1983. The dispute turned on which of two documents was his true appointment order: a 1979 call letter from the Commandant asking him to report for training, or a later Battalion Order from the Assistant Commandant confirming his appointment after he completed that training. The Court held that the call letter was conditional on completing training and did not itself amount to appointment; the Battalion Order, issued after successful training, was the operative appointment order, and could validly serve as both an appointment order and a posting order. Since the constable was appointed by the Assistant Commandant/Assistant Security Officer, and the officer who later removed him, the Adjutant, was not subordinate in rank to that authority, Article 311(1) of the Constitution was not violated.

The Court reaffirmed that Article 311(1) bars dismissal or removal only by an authority subordinate in rank to the one that actually appointed the employee, and that delegating disciplinary powers to a competent officer does not by itself breach this protection. Reading the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 with its Rules, the Court held the power of appointment vested in the Chief Security Officer can validly be exercised by other superior officers under the statutory scheme. The removal order was restored.