Appointment power includes dismissal power, and proved serious misconduct can justify termination under standing orders.

The authority empowered to appoint a workman ordinarily has the incidental power to dismiss, unless the governing standing orders clearly restrict that power; here, the Plant Manager who made the appointment was competent to issue the dismissal. The Court also held that proved serious misconduct, including unauthorised passengers and allowing one of them to drive the truck, fell within major misconduct under the standing orders and justified the penalty imposed. The Industrial Tribunal's award was therefore set aside and the employer's disciplinary action was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Plant Manager who appointed the workman was competent under the standing orders to pass the order of dismissal. (ii) Whether the dismissal could be sustained on the footing that the proved charges amounted to major misconduct warranting that penalty.

Issue (i): Whether the Plant Manager who appointed the workman was competent under the standing orders to pass the order of dismissal.

Analysis: The appointment card and the standing orders showed that the Plant Manager, and not the General Manager, made the appointment in his own capacity. The standing order dealing with disciplinary action did not confine the power of dismissal exclusively to the company as a distinct authority. On the contrary, the power to terminate service was treated as an incident of the power of appointment. The principle underlying Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 supported the conclusion that the authority empowered to appoint ordinarily possesses the incidental power to dismiss, unless the governing instrument clearly provides otherwise.

Conclusion: The Plant Manager was competent to pass the order of dismissal; the objection of want of authority failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the dismissal could be sustained on the footing that the proved charges amounted to major misconduct warranting that penalty.

Analysis: The Tribunal had upheld the charges of picking up unauthorised passengers and permitting one of them to drive the truck, and those findings were not found to call for interference. The established misconduct fell within the serious category contemplated by the standing orders and justified the imposition of the major penalty. The Court declined to substitute a lesser punishment in the circumstances of the case.

Conclusion: The dismissal was justified and the punishment was sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The award of the Industrial Tribunal was set aside and the employer's disciplinary action was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Unless the governing standing orders clearly provide otherwise, the authority competent to make an appointment carries the incidental power to terminate that service, and dismissal for proved serious misconduct will be sustained.

---