Article 311(1): Railway Recruitment Call Letter Is Not the Appointment Order; Removal by Officer of Equal Rank Upheld by Supreme Court

Case Name: Union of India & Ors. v. Ramdhani Prasad

Date of Judgment: 24 September 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 1047

Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi.

Held: For Article 311(1) of the Constitution, the relevant appointing authority is the officer who actually made the appointment, identified from the operative appointment order and the governing rules. A call letter requiring a recruit to report for training does not become the appointment order merely because a senior officer issued it. Here, the Assistant Commandant’s battalion order appointed the respondent as a regular Rakshak after he completed training. The Adjutant who later removed him was not subordinate in rank to that appointing authority and was competent to impose removal under the applicable rules. The departmental enquiry was not invalid merely because it proceeded ex parte: the respondent had received the charge-sheet, replied to it, been notified of the enquiry, and been given an opportunity to respond to the proposed penalty.

Summary: The respondent joined the Railway Protection Special Force as a recruit under training after receiving a 3 May 1979 call letter from the Commandant. Following training, an Assistant Commandant issued a battalion order on 4 December 1979 appointing him as a Rakshak. He was later charged with remaining absent for 72 days after his sanctioned leave expired. When he did not attend the notified departmental enquiry or reply to the subsequent penalty notice, the Adjutant ordered his removal. The trial court upheld that order, but the first appellate court and the Allahabad High Court treated the Commandant’s call letter as the appointment order and held that removal by the Adjutant violated Article 311(1). The Supreme Court found that they had identified the wrong appointing authority.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the Union of India’s appeal, set aside the High Court and first appellate court judgments, and restored the trial court’s dismissal of the employee’s suit.