T.S. Misra, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner, who was appointed as Rakshak on 3rd November, 1965 in the Railway Protection Force, Northern Railway, was removed from service vide order dated 10th October, 1975, a copy of which is Annexure -8 to the writ petition. This order was passed by Sri. S.N. Singh, Security Officer, Northern Railway, Lucknow. The Petitioner filed an appeal before the Chief Security Officer which was rejected by the Deputy Chief Security Officer vide Annexure -10. The order of removal was passed against the Petitioner on a disciplinary proceeding initiated against him. The Petitioner contends that the proceeding initiated against him by Annexure -1 and culminated by order Annexure -8 and ultimately by Annexure -10 was without jurisdiction and should, therefore, be quashed.
(2.) THE petition has been opposed. We have heard Sri. B.C. Saxena learned Counsel for the Petitioner as also Sri. Robin Mitra learned Counsel for the opposite parties. learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the appointing authority of the Petitioner being the Chief Security Officer, neither the disciplinary proceeding could be initiated by the Security Officer nor the order of removal could be passed by him, hence the proceedings in question including the order of removal were incompetent and without jurisdiction. learned Counsel for the Union of India submitted that since the Petitioner was appointed by the Principal of the Training College who was of the rank of Assistant Security Officer, the disciplinary proceeding and the impugned order were perfectly competent and the order of removal was legal and valid.
(3.) THE principal question for consideration, therefore is as to who was the appointing authority of the Petitioner. In order to ascertain this fact we asked the learned Counsel for the Union of India to produce before us the initial letter of appointment of the Petitioner as Rakshak. Sri. Robin Mitra has produced before us the personal file of the Petitioner maintained by the office of the Union of India. There is no specific letter of appointment as such issued to the Petitioner but there is an agreement purporting to have been executed by the President of India on the one hand and the Petitioner on the other. paragraph 2 of the said agreement being relevant is quoted below: 2. I understand and agree that my services can be terminated: (a) by the Chief Security Officer at any time during the period of my initial training or the period of my probation thereafter on issue of notice of one month or the tender of one month's pay in lieu of such notice, or (b) by the appointing authority on my failure to pass the final examination of the initial training course. Learned Counsel for the Union of India, therefore, submitted that in view of the said agreement the services of the Petitioner could be terminated by his appointing authority and in this connection he drew our attention to a GO whereby the Chief Security Officer has delegated his authority to the Security Officer. We do not, however, find force in the contention that the Security Officer can remove the Petitioner from service. It is quite clear from the said agreement that the Chief Security Officer can terminate the appointment of the Petitioner. In Clause (b) of paragraph 2 it is, no doubt, clear that the appointing authority can terminate the appointment of the Petitioner only if he fails to pass the initial training course. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner had succeeded in the initial training course. Even by virtue of the said agreement the Chief Security Officer could alone terminate the services of the Petitioner. That apart the statutory provision is quite clear. Section 6 of the Railway Protection Force Act lays down: The appointment of members of the Force shall rest with the Chief Security Officers who shall exercise that power in accordance with rules made under this Act. There is a proviso to Section 6 which says: Provided that the power of appointment under this section may also be exercised by such other superior officer as the Chief Security Officer concerned may by order specify in this behalf. No document has been produced before us to show that on the date the Petitioner was appointed the Chief Security Officer had empowered any other superior officer to exercise the power of the Chief Security Officer to make appointment in the Force. The appointing authority of the Petitioner was, therefore, the Chief Security Officer. He could, therefore, be removed from service by the Chief Security Officer by following the procedure prescribed by law and not by any other person. As the impugned order was not passed by the Chief -Security Officer, it cannot be sustained.;