Case: Om Prakash Gupta Swadheen Vs. Union of India &amp; Others

1. The appellant was appointed to the temporary post of caretaker in the Geological Survey of India by an order dated April 4, 1963.The order which was signed by the Director of Administration, Geological Survey of India, begins with the following words :"The Director General, Geological Survey of India hereby appoints........."It is accepted by both sides that the appointment had been made by theGeological Survey of India. The order of appointment stated that the "appointee was to be on trial for a period of 2 years and his retention in the post for further period will be subject to the assessment of his work during the trial period". It appears that the appellant continued to work till January 25, 1966 when he received a notice terminating his service as caretaker, Geological Survey of India, Northern Region, from the date of expiry of one calendar month from the date on which the notice was served on him. The notice of termination was issued on the signature of Shri G. K. Moghe, Director of Administration. As the appellant did not give up charge of his office even on the expiry of the said period of one month, he was relieved of his charge by an order dated February 24, 1966.2. The appellant challenged both the notice of termination as well as the subsequent order relieving him of his charge by a writ petition filed before the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench). A learned Judge of the said High Court by his judgment and order dated December 12, 1968 allowed the petition and quashed the orders complained of on the view that the Director of Administration on whose signature the notice of termination was issued was not the competent authority to make that order. On appeal preferred by the Union of India, a Division Bench of the High Court reversed this decision and dismissed the writ petition holding that the Director of Administration was competent to terminate the service of the appellant.

Court's reasoning:
This is a contention which cannot be rejected out of hand, However, this aspect of the matter does not appear to have been investigated in the High Court. But if the parties are agreed on the point, as they seemed to be, that the definition of appointing authority in Rule 2 (a) of the Central Civil Services ( Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 would apply to this case, there should be no doubt that Shri G. K. Moghe, assuming he was empowered to appoint the appellant, was not the appointing authority, the Director General, Geological Survey of India, who in fact appointed the appellant being the higher authority. We do not see how the provisions of Rule 9 (2) are repugnant to the definition of appointing authority in Rule 2 (a), as the Division Bench of the High Court appears to have thought. Rule 2 (a) refers to the authorities who have the power to appoint as also the authorities who did appoint a Government servant and provides that whichever authority is the highest authority among them would be the appointing authority in relation to the Government servant concerned. The definition plainly takes note of Rule 9 (2) and no question can therefore arise that Rule 9 (2) is repugnant to the definition of appointing authority in Rule 2 (a).7. This should be enough to dispose of the appeal. However, despite the agreement among the parties on the point, it is possible to entertain some doubt as to whether the definition in Rule 2 (a) would apply to this case. The Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 which govern the appellants case also define appointing authority.This definition refers to the definition of appointing authority in the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 only for one class of posts called the specified posts. It might be reasonably argued that this indicated that the definition in the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 was not available for temporary Government servants not holding specified posts. In the absence of definition of appointing authority in Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 in relation to a temporary Government servant not holding a specified post, as the appellant was, we think the term appointing authority must be understood in its plain and real meaning, namely, the authority which appointed him. From this point of view also the impugned notice of termination was given by an authority which was not the appointing authority, and as such did not satisfy the requirement of Rule 5 (1) (a) of the Central Civil Services ( Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.