The court clarifies the role of appointing and appellate authorities in disciplinary proceedings.
In a landmark judgment delivered on April 28, 2026, the Calcutta High Court's Circuit Bench at Port Blair, comprising Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Smita Das De, reinstated the dismissal order of government employee Dharam Raj, while emphasizing the principles of natural justice and procedural propriety in disciplinary proceedings. The court overturned the Central Administrative Tribunal's decision, which had quashed the punishment order citing procedural lapses.
The case revolved around the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Administration against Dharam Raj, who faced charges of indiscipline and non-compliance with administrative orders. The Chief Secretary, serving as the disciplinary authority, imposed the penalty of dismissal, which was subsequently affirmed by the appellate authority, the Lieutenant Governor.
The tribunal had previously set aside the dismissal, arguing that the Secretary (Personnel), as per a Gazette Notification, was the competent authority to impose penalties, and the Chief Secretary could not act as both the disciplinary and appellate authority. The tribunal also noted a deprivation of appellate forum for Dharam Raj.
However, the High Court clarified that under Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India, the Chief Secretary, being the appointing authority, had the jurisdiction to impose penalties, including dismissal, and no subordinate authority could do so. The court further reasoned that the presence of an appeal mechanism before the Lieutenant Governor negates the claim of deprivation of appellate forum.
Addressing the procedural aspects, the court highlighted that the issuance of charge memoranda and inquiry by subordinate authorities is permissible under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, provided they are authorized by the disciplinary authority. The court found no procedural lapses in the disciplinary proceedings and emphasized that the punishment was proportionate to the charges of indiscipline and misconduct established against Dharam Raj.
The court also dismissed the argument of res judicata presented by Dharam Raj, stating that the earlier tribunal judgment was implicitly set aside following a remand by a division bench for re-evaluation.
This judgment underscores the significance of adhering to procedural rules and natural justice in disciplinary proceedings within the public service sector, ensuring that penalties are imposed by the appropriate authorities and that employees have access to appellate forums.
Bottom line:-
Disciplinary proceedings and penalty imposition must adhere to the principles of natural justice. Article 311(1) of the Constitution permits the Appointing Authority to impose penalties, while subordinates cannot impose dismissal/removal. An employee cannot claim deprivation of appellate forum if the administrative hierarchy provides higher appellate authority.
Statutory provision(s): Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India, Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965
