Validity of an order signed after an officer left office was rejected, and the matter was remanded for fresh hearing.

An order dated after the Collector had relinquished charge was treated as unsustainable where the record did not show when it was actually signed or issued, and the signature itself carried no date. The surrounding circumstances created doubt about whether the officer was still in office when the order became operative, and that doubt was resolved in favour of the appellant. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision by a competent authority after affording the appellant a hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order, bearing a date after the Collector had relinquished charge, could be sustained, and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh decision.

Analysis: The order copy bore only the date on the face of the order and did not establish when it was actually issued or signed. The signature of the Collector did not contain the date of signing, and the surrounding circumstances created doubt as to whether the officer was still in office when the order was made operative. That doubt was resolved in favour of the appellant, and the appellant was entitled to a fresh hearing before a competent authority.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for passing a fresh order after hearing the appellant.

---