Illegal dismissal by subordinate authority and natural justice breaches vitiated the disciplinary proceedings and appellate order.

Dismissal by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority, without delegated power, was treated as per se illegal and without jurisdiction; the appellate affirmation did not cure the defect. The court also held that the government-controlled company was amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 as an instrumentality of the Central Government and, on the discussion, satisfied Article 12. The disciplinary process was found vitiated by denial of relevant documents, refusal to summon defence witnesses, non-examination of the process server, consideration of extraneous material, and a non-speaking appellate order. The dismissal and appellate orders were quashed, and reinstatement with back wages and consequential benefits was directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the respondent-company was amenable to writ jurisdiction as an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether the dismissal order passed by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority was without jurisdiction; (iii) whether the domestic enquiry and appellate order were vitiated for breach of natural justice and fair play.

Issue (i): whether the respondent-company was amenable to writ jurisdiction as an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The respondent-company was found to be wholly controlled and financed by the Central Government, with public character, monopoly status, and pervasive governmental control. The Court applied the settled test of instrumentality or agency of Government and held that the mode of creation was not decisive.

Conclusion: The respondent-company was held to be an instrumentality of the Central Government and its disciplinary action was held amenable to writ jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): whether the dismissal order passed by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority was without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The petitioner was appointed by the General Manager, while the dismissal was ordered by the Superintending Engineer (Drilling), who was lower in rank. No material was produced to show valid delegation of disciplinary power. The appellate affirmation did not cure the initial jurisdictional defect, and the Court also found violation of the basic service principle that the disciplinary authority should not act as appellate authority in the same matter.

Conclusion: The dismissal order was held to be illegal and without jurisdiction.

Issue (iii): whether the domestic enquiry and appellate order were vitiated for breach of natural justice and fair play.

Analysis: The enquiry was held to be unfair because witness statements were recorded ex parte and not furnished to enable effective cross-examination, defence witnesses were refused without proper consideration, and an independent witness was not examined. The appellate order was also found to be a non-speaking order that did not consider the grounds raised by the petitioner.

Conclusion: The domestic enquiry and appellate order were held to be vitiated by breach of natural justice and fair play.

Final Conclusion: The impugned dismissal and appellate orders were quashed, and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated with back wages and consequential benefits.

Ratio Decidendi: A public sector undertaking under pervasive governmental control is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, and a dismissal imposed by an unauthorised subordinate authority after a procedurally unfair enquiry is void and cannot be validated by a defective appeal order.

---