The guarantee contained in Article 311(1) of the Constitution has been explained afresh by the Supreme Court. It has been held in Union of India v. Ramdhani Prasad, 2026 INSC 1047, by a Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, that the constitutional prohibition is attracted only where the order of dismissal or removal has been passed by an authority subordinate in rank to the authority by which the employee was appointed. Where the two authorities are of equal rank, or where the removing authority is the higher, no infirmity arises, and the order is not liable to be struck down upon that ground.
- Case: Union of India & Ors. v. Ramdhani Prasad
- Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 1047 | 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 983
- Bench: Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ.
- Date of judgment: 24 September 2026
- Provisions: Article 311(1) of the Constitution. Sections 6 and 9 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957. Rules 20, 43 and 44 and Schedules I and II of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959.
- Result: Appeal allowed. Judgments of the High Court and of the First Appellate Court set aside. Dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court restored, and the order of removal dated 18.03.1983 restored.
The Facts
- That a call letter was issued to the respondent on 03.05.1979 by the Commandant, Railway Protection Special Force, Gorakhpur, and it was expressly made conditional upon successful completion of the initial training.
- That the training having been completed, a Battalion Order dated 04.12.1979 was issued by the Assistant Commandant, by which he was appointed as a Rakshak.
- That departmental proceedings were drawn up against him for overstaying leave by 72 days, and the enquiry proceeded ex parte.
- That by order dated 18.03.1983 he was removed from service by the Adjutant in exercise of the power under Rule 44 of the Rules of 1959, and his departmental appeal was rejected in the year 1984.
- That a civil suit was thereafter instituted, which was dismissed by the Trial Court. The First Appellate Court reversed that decree, and the judgment was affirmed by the High Court of Allahabad on 12.01.2023.
The View Taken by the High Court
It was held by the High Court that the appointment had been made by the Commandant through the call letter of 1979, and that the removal having been ordered by the Adjutant, who was subordinate in rank to the Commandant, the order of removal was rendered unconstitutional by the mandate of Article 311(1).
The Holding of the Supreme Court
That view has been set aside. The scope of Article 311(1) has been stated in terms which admit of no ambiguity.
Who was the appointing authority?
The foundation of the High Court's reasoning was found to be erroneous. A distinction was drawn between a conditional offer and an appointment. The call letter dated 03.05.1979 was conditional upon successful completion of the initial training, and no right to the post was thereby conferred. The appointment was brought about by the Battalion Order dated 04.12.1979, which was issued by the Assistant Commandant. The Assistant Commandant was therefore the appointing authority, and not the Commandant.
Rank of the removing authority
The Adjutant, by whom the order of removal was passed, was not subordinate in rank to the Assistant Commandant, and the power of removal in respect of a Rakshak was vested in him under the Schedules to the Rules of 1959. The condition upon which Article 311(1) operates was accordingly never satisfied.
Delegation does not lower the rank
It was reiterated, upon the authority of Krishna Kumar v. Divisional Assistant Electrical Engineer, that the delegation of the power of appointment to a subordinate officer does not alter the rank which that officer holds in the hierarchy. The comparison mandated by Article 311(1) is one of rank, and not of the source from which the power was drawn.
The expression "shall rest", occurring in the statutory scheme, was likewise held, following Union of India v. Chandra Pal Pandey, to convey overall superintendence and control, and not an exclusive power of appointment in the superior officer.
The ex parte enquiry
The plea founded upon breach of natural justice was also rejected. The charge-sheet had been received by the respondent, a reply had been submitted by him, and notice of the enquiry had been served. The enquiry having proceeded ex parte upon his own failure to appear, no violation of the principles of natural justice was made out.
Article 311(1): The Rule in Short
| Situation | Effect under Article 311(1) |
|---|---|
| Removal ordered by an authority subordinate in rank to the appointing authority | Order is bad. The constitutional bar operates. |
| Removal ordered by an authority of equal rank | Order is valid, so far as Article 311(1) is concerned. |
| Removal ordered by an authority higher in rank | Order is valid. |
| Appointing power exercised by a delegate | The rank of the delegate, and not the rank of the delegating authority, is to be compared. |
| Conditional call letter or offer of appointment | Not an appointment. The order by which appointment is actually made is to be looked at. |
Practical Value of the Ruling
- That in every challenge founded upon Article 311(1), the first exercise is to identify the instrument by which the appointment was actually made. A call letter, an offer or a letter of provisional selection will not serve.
- That the comparison to be drawn is of rank, and the argument that the power was traceable to a higher functionary is of no avail where the delegate himself made the appointment.
- That the protection of Article 311(1) is confined to the authority passing the order. The procedural guarantee of a reasonable opportunity stands upon Article 311(2), and it is to be pleaded separately.
- That an employee who stays away from the departmental enquiry after service of notice is seldom heard to complain of an ex parte proceeding.
Read the Full Judgment
Download Judgment (PDF) Supreme Court Judgment Portal
Frequently Asked Questions
What does Article 311(1) protect against?
It provides that no person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or of a State, or who holds a civil post, shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed.
Is removal by an officer of equal rank permissible?
Yes. It has been held in Union of India v. Ramdhani Prasad, 2026 INSC 1047, that the bar operates only where the removing authority is subordinate in rank to the appointing authority.
Is a call letter an order of appointment?
Not where it is conditional. A call letter issued subject to successful completion of training is an offer, and the appointment takes effect by the order made after the condition is fulfilled.
Does delegation of the power of appointment alter the position?
No. The rank of the officer who actually made the appointment is to be compared with the rank of the officer who ordered removal. Delegation does not raise or lower rank.
Can an ex parte departmental enquiry be assailed?
Not where the charge-sheet was received, a reply was submitted and notice of the enquiry was served, and the delinquent nevertheless failed to appear.
Case: Union of India & Ors. v. Ramdhani Prasad, 2026 INSC 1047, decided on 24 September 2026 by Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ.
