.webp)
The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal filed by the Union of India and restored the removal of a Railway Protection Special Force (RPSF) Rakshak, holding that the call letter issued by the Commandant was not the operative appointment order. The Court found that his regular appointment was made by the Assistant Commandant after he successfully completed initial training. The judgment was delivered on September 24, 2026, by a Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi.
Background
The dispute concerned the appointment and subsequent removal of Ramdhani Prasad, who had been selected for the post of Rakshak in the RPSF. A call letter issued by the Commandant on May 3, 1979 required him to undergo initial training, with the proposed appointment expressly made conditional upon successful completion of that training.
After he completed the training, Battalion Order dated December 4, 1979, issued by the Assistant Commandant, recorded his appointment as a Rakshak with effect from that date and also posted him to the 7th Battalion. The Supreme Court examined these documents to determine who was actually the appointing authority.
The Court found that the May 3, 1979 communication was only a call letter for training and did not constitute the operative appointment order. The Bench noted that the December 4 order expressly appointed the recruits after successful completion of training.
The Court observed:
“The Call Letter dated 03.05.1979 did not contain an unconditional declaration that the respondent stood appointed as a regular Rakshak, however, it expressly made the proposed appointment conditional upon successful completion of initial training and used expressions such as ‘accept the offer’ and ‘candidature for the post’.”
The Bench further held that the December 4 order could operate both as an appointment and posting order. It concluded that the Assistant Commandant was the authority who had actually appointed the respondent as a regular Rakshak.
The Supreme Court then examined whether the Adjutant who passed the removal order was subordinate to the appointing authority. Referring to the Railway Protection Force Act and the applicable Rules, the Court found that the Assistant Security Officer was competent to appoint Rakshaks and could also impose the penalty of removal.
The Court stated:
“The constitutional prohibition contained in Article 311(1) is attracted only where the order of dismissal or removal is passed by an authority subordinate in rank to the authority by which the employee was appointed, whereas, this essential ingredient of Article 311 is absent in the facts of the present case.”
The respondent had also challenged the departmental enquiry on the ground that it proceeded ex-parte while he was ill. The Supreme Court noted that he had acknowledged the charge-sheet, submitted his response, received notice of the enquiry and was later issued a show-cause notice.
The Bench therefore rejected the challenge based on violation of natural justice, holding that the enquiry could not be treated as invalid merely because it proceeded ex-parte.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Allahabad High Court judgment dated January 12, 2023 and the First Appellate Court’s decision.
It restored the Trial Court’s dismissal of the suit and directed that the respondent’s removal order dated March 18, 1983 be restored.
Case Details
Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Ramdhani Prasad
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 13645 of 2023)
Judge: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
Decision Date: September 24, 2026
