Subsequently after the companypletion of training, on 13.6.1990 a letter was issued by the Divisional Commercial Manager in short the DCM Vadodara.
Respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority.
The only issue which was raised by the Union of India was that CAT was number justified in holding that the order of dismissal was passed by an authority lower in rank than the appointing authority.
Liberty was granted to the respondent to make submissions in respect of the charges and after an enquiry the DCM passed an order of penalty of removal from service.
The orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in short the CAT in the Original Application No.170 of 1997 and Review Application No.32 of 2003 were upheld.
Learned companynsel for the respondent supported the orders of the CAT and the High Court.
The factual position in a nutshell is as follows On 1.1.1990 a letter was issued to the respondent informing him that on successful companypletion of the companyrse which included successful companypletion of practical training on division and on the respondent passing the prescribed Hindi test he may be offered an appointment in the temporary cadre on the regular scales of pay.
A charge sheet was issued on 1.6.1993 making allegations like misappropriation.
As numbered above the writ petition filed before the High Court was dismissed.
Selection order was passed by the DRM while the appointment order was passed by the DCM who had acted as the disciplinary authority.
A revision petition was filed.
It was stated that the respondent has been rightly removed from service.
The DCM and Senior DCM who had acted as disciplinary authority as well as the Appellant Authority were lower in rank than the appointing authority.
Accordingly the order was quashed.
The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Vadodara, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal.
The Revisional Authority i.e. ADRM also dismissed the revision.
Arising out of SLP C No.
In support of the appeal, learned companynsel for the appellants submitted that the order dated 1.1.1990 was the selection order and in fact the appointment order is dated 13.6.1990 which was passed by the DCM.
21885 of 2004 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
A reply was submitted by present appellants.
A petition was filed before CAT praying to set aside and for quashing the order of removal.
Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants Union of India and its functionaries.
