Disciplinary dismissal by authorised delegate upheld where later board approval cured any defect through ratification.

A disciplinary dismissal signed by the Principal and Secretary was treated as valid because the Board's resolutions authorised that officer to take necessary action, including completing the dismissal process. Even if the original authority were imperfect, the Board's later approval operated as ratification, and ratification relates back to the date of the act ratified. On that basis, the plea that the dismissal lacked competent authority failed, and the challenge to the employee's dismissal did not survive.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dismissal order was passed by the competent authority and, if not, whether the subsequent approval by the Board of Governors validly ratified the action.

Analysis: The disciplinary proceedings were initiated and processed under the Board's resolutions, which authorized the Principal & Secretary to take necessary action and do the needful in consultation with the Chairman. The final dismissal order was signed by the Principal & Secretary, but the Board later approved the action in its meeting of 22.08.1996. The authority conferred by the resolutions was wide enough to include passing the dismissal order, and in any event the later approval operated as ratification. Ratification validates an act already done and relates back to the date of the act ratified.

Conclusion: The dismissal order was held to be valid and to have been passed by the competent authority, and the plea of lack of authority failed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the dismissal did not survive, and the employee's writ petition was liable to be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A disciplinary order signed by an authorised delegate and subsequently approved by the competent body is valid, and later ratification relates back to cure the initial defect in authority.

---