[2026:RJ-JP:2051-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 370/2015 Shiv Singh S/o Shri Sahib Singh aged about 53 years, Shivaji colony, Road No.7, House No.106, Near Santosh Coaching Centre, Kota (Rajasthan) (since deceased) 1. Suman Choudhary W/o Late Shri Shiv Singh Choudhary, aged about 45 years 2. Neetu Singh D/o Late Shri Shiv Singh Choudhary, Aged about 20 years, 3. Amit Singh S/o Late Shri Shiv Singh Choudhary, aged about 19 years 4. Mohit Singh S/o Late Shri Shiv Singh Choudhary, aged about 17 years (minor) through his mother Suman Choudhary W/o Late Shri Shiv Singh Choudhary. All R/o House No.106, Shivaji Colony, Near Maszid, Gali No.7, Near Railway Station, Kota (Rajasthan) ----Petitioners Versus 1. Union of India through the General Manage, West Central Railway, Jabalpur (MP) 2. The Chief Works Manager, Carriage & Workshop, West Central Railway, Kota 3. The Deputy C.M.E. (R&M) West Central Railway, Kota, Rajasthan 4. The Works Manager (C), Office of CWM, West Railway, Kota Division, Kota, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.P. Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Pareek HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Judgment 1. Date of conclusion of Arguments 15.01.2026 2. Date on which the judgment was reserved 15.01.2026 3. Whether the full judgment or only operative part is pronounced Full 4. Date of pronouncement 29.01.2026 [2026:RJ-JP:2051-DB] (2 of 11) [CW-370/2015] Per, Justice Ravi Chirania:- 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner by which a challenge has been made to order dated 19.03.2012 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'learned Tribunal' for short) in Original Application No.46/2006 titled as Shiv Singh Vs. Union of India whereby the O.A. was dismissed. After filing of the writ petition the petitioner has expired and the legal representatives were taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. P.P. Mathur, in brief, stated that the petitioner was appointed in the respondent railway on the post of Helper Khalasi after considering his qualifications as required for the post in the year 1981. The petitioner belongs to the Jat community which falls in the OBC category. 2. Learned counsel submitted that after screening, the petitioner was absorbed in Group-D post as per the applicable provisions and he was given the regular appointment on the post in the year 1984. He submitted that the petitioner has no knowledge as to how or on what basis he was shown as member of the reserved category at the time of his appointment in Group- D and how he was granted subsequent promotion to Grade-III and Grade-II also under the ST category. He further submitted that he never claimed or submitted any document of the ST category and, therefore, whatever appointment and the promotions were done by the respondents were on the basis of the record which they maintained on their own in which they themselves recorded the caste of the petitioner as ST, reserved category, and therefore he has not made any concealment or not done any misrepresentation [2026:RJ-JP:2051-DB] (3 of 11) [CW-370/2015] in securing the appointment and taking subsequent promotions in the respondent Railway Department. 3. Learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner, after having served the respondent for 20 years, was issued a show-cause notice on 23.05.2005 wherein it was alleged that he took the appointment by declaring himself to be a candidate of the ST category. After the show-cause notice he was also issued the illegal charge-sheet with same allegations and after conducting the departmental proceedings he was removed from the services by impugned order dated 17.07.2007. Against the order of removal from the service the petitioner filed the departmental appeal which was also dismissed by order dated 29.11.2007. Thereafter, he approached the learned Tribunal by filing the O.A. No.46/2006 in which he challenged the order of removal as well as the rejection of the departmental appeal. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal without considering the facts as stated by him in detail in O.A. dismissed the same by order dated 19.03.2012. 4. In addition, learned counsel raised an argument that the petitioner was appointed by the Chief Works Manager, however, the removal order dated 17.07.2007 was passed by a Works Manager, a person who was not competent under the rules as he was not the appointing authority of the petitioner. He, therefore, submitted that in terms of the law as settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court, that, in case order of removal is passed by an incompetent authority then the same would be illegal and bad in law, therefore, the order of removal as passed in his case, dated 17.07.2007, by the Works Manager, who is not the appointing authority and [2026:RJ-JP:2051-DB] (4 of 11) [CW-370/2015] further is lower in subordination to the appointing authority is illegal, as same is in violation of Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner never claimed or filed any document to present himself to be a member of the ST category, reserve category, and therefore, whatever entries were made by the respondents in the service record were a fault on their own part as they made incorrect entries for which the petitioner cannot be penalised and therefore, the order of removal from service dated 17.07.2007 and dismissal of the departmental appeal by order dated 29.11.2007 and of rejection of the O.A. by the learned Tribunal dated 19.03.2012 being illegal and contrary to record and also in terms of the law as settled in this regard, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside and the writ petiton filed by the petitioner needs to be allowed and the petitioner to be reinstated in the service from the date of removal that is 17.07.2007 with all consequential benefits. 6. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.P. Mathur relied upon certain judgments. The first judgment as cited, was passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Kumar Vs. Divisional Assistant ElectricalEngineer Central Railway reported in 1979 AIR SC 1912 in which the Hon'ble Apex Court held that a person could not be removed by a person incompetent under the law and further removal by an incompetent person is illegal and bad in law in terms of provisions of Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India. 7. Learned counsel further cited the judgment passed by High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in the case of State of Jammu and [2026:RJ-JP:2051-DB] (5 of 11) [CW-370/2015] Kashmir Vs. Raj Mohammad and Ors. and other connected cases reported in 1971 SLR page 828 in which it was held that dismissal of a person by an authority lower than the appointing authority is invalid as only the competent authority has power to do so. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent strongly opposed the submissions as made and submitted that the order of removal dated 17.07.2007, the order of appellate authority of dismissing the appeal by order dated 29.11.2007 and the order of dismissal of the O.A. passed by the learned Tribunal are strictly in accordance with law. He further submitted that the petitioner was aware of the fact that the he belongs to OBC category, being Jat by caste, however, he secured the appointment and further took promotions to Grade-III and Grade-II also under the ST category, and therefore, as he does not belongs to the ST category, was rightly issued the show-cause notice and he was asked to submit the relevant documents, which he failed to do so. Thereafter, after issuing him the charge-sheet and conducting the departmental proceedings and following the complete procedure, as laid down under the rules, he was punished with the punishment of removal from the service by order dated 17.07.2007 against which he also availed remedy of departmental appeal which was also dismissed by reasoned order dated 29.11.2007. The petitioner also failed to satisfy the learned Tribunal which also dismissed his O.A. by order dated 19.03.2012. 9. Learned counsel further submitted that it is not dispute that it is the appointing authority who is competent to remove a person from services under the Rules, but in the present case the petitioner was appointed by Chief Works Manager and was [2026:RJ-JP:2051-DB] (6 of 11) [CW-370/2015] removed by the Works Manager, however, no mistake was committed by the respondents in removing the petitioner from service, as the respondent issued the order dated 10.09.2004 specifically in respect of imposition of penalties of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of non-gazetted staff, by which it specified the punishing/competent authority. 10. In the present case the punishment was rightly passed by the competent authority, specified by respondent, by order dated 10.09.2004, which has not been questioned by the petitioner, while challenging his removal order dated 17.07.2007 not only before the appellate authority but also before the learned Tribunal as well as this Court also. The ground as raised by the petitioner regarding his removal by any incompetent authority is baseless as removal was done in terms of order dated 10.09.2004 by Works Manager, who is competent to do so and, therefore, writ petition deserves to be dismissed in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 12. This Court noted that the instant writ petition was filed by the petitioner in the year 2014 and was first time listed before the Coordinate Bench on 05.12.2016 and while issuing the notices the following order was passed:- “The petitioner was charge-sheeted on the allegation of wrongly having obtained appointment in the Scheduled Tribe Category. A charge-sheet followed leading to an inquiry .report which culminated in removal from service. Suffice it to observe that the findings were primarily based on entries in the service book which was indisputably signed by the petitioner as discussed by the Tribunal. To that extent we find no reason to interfere more so in [2026:RJ-JP:2051-DB] (7 of 11) [CW-370/2015] view of a similar order passed on 28.11.2016 in D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.374/2015. But, Counsel for the Petitioner has raised another important question that his appointing authority was the Chief Works Manager and therefore he could not have been dismissed by the Works Manager who was an Officer subordinate in rank to the appointing authority. Referring to this issue considered by the Tribunal it was submitted that it has been very perfunctorily being dealt with opining that the order of dismissal was passed by an Officer of equivalent rank of appointing authority. Against the order of removal passed by the competent authority-cum-Works Manager the petitioner preferred an appeal on 31.07.2007. He took an objection in the very opening grounds that the order of removal by the Works Manager subordinate in rank to the Chief Works Manager was not sustainable. We have perused the order of the appellate authority. It does not deal with his objection that the order for removal was by an authority not competent to do so. Counsel for the Respondents sought to persuade us that there had been proper delegation of powers. Since we have declined to interfere with the order of removal in so far as the conclusions in the departmental proceedings regarding entries in the service book are concerned, we are not inclined to remand the matter back to the authorities for considering the ground taken in the memo of appeal that the order of removal was by an incompetent authority. It will only prolong matters. We therefore require the respondents to file a proper affidavit in reply to the objection taken by the petitioner in his memo of appeal but not dealt with by the appellate authority that the order of removal was by an authority incompetent to do so. Let counsel for the Respondents serve and file additional counter affidavit on counsel for the Petitioner within a period of two weeks. Reply if any may be filed within one week thereafter. List for admission after three weeks.” 13. By the order dated 05.12.2016 the Coordinate Bench refused to interfere in the order passed by the learned Tribunal as no mistake was committed by the learned Tribunal while dismissing [2026:RJ-JP:2051-DB] (8 of 11) [CW-370/2015] the O.A. as the petitioner secured the appointment in the ST category and was removed from services after conducting the departmental proceedings and further, the findings were based on the entries in the service-book which remained undisputed. However, the Co-ordinate Bench issued the notices only on the question as to whether the Works Manager, an officer subordinate to the appointing authority that is the Chief Works Manager was competent to pass the order of removal and therefore whether the order of removal is sustainable in the eye of law or not. 14. As the Co-ordinate Bench specifically refused to interfere with the order of removal dated 17.07.2007 and issued the notices only to the limited extent and therefore this Court is not inclined to enter into that issue again. As far as the issue of competency as raised by the counsel for the petitioner regarding his removal by the Works Manager is concerned, this Court, after perusing the record of the file noted that though the petitioner was appointed by Chief Works Manager, who is the appointing authority, however, the respondent Railway by order dated 10.09.2004, much before the removal of the petitioner by order dated 17.07.2007, specified the list of competent authorities who were empowered to pass the order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from services in the case of Group-C and D staff employees. The order dated 10.09.2004, being relevant, is reproduced as under:- “The penalties of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement on non-gazetted (Group'C' & 'D') staff, are sometimes imposed by authority below the rank of Appointing authority. As they are not competent to impose such penalties, the whole disciplinary 20eedings are vitiated. Following is the Schedule of Power for DAR powers w.r.t. various grades of staff in matters of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service; [2026:RJ-JP:2051-DB] (9 of 11) [CW-370/2015] S.No. Pay-scale Competent Authority 1. 2. 3. 4. 2550-3200 2610-3540 2650-4000 2750-4400 Jr. Scale Officer/ Asstt. Officer 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 3050-4590 3200-4900 4000-6000 4500-7000 5000-8000 Sr. Scale Officer 10. 11. 12. 5500-9000 6500-10500 7450-115000 Jr. Administrative/ Selection Grade Officer 15. In the order dated 10.09.2004, it is specifically mentioned that the rule provides that the punishment of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from services of a railway servant should be imposed only by the highest of the authorities, that is either by the authority which actually appointed the railway servant to the relevant grade or the post or the authority which is empowered to make appointment to that grade or the post at the time of imposition of the penalty, whichever is higher. 16. This court put a specific question before the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the competent authority specified by the order dated 10.09.2004, as applicable to the present case, was the competent person, who passed the order of removal in his case and, if not, then any challenge had been made to the order dated 10.09.2004 or not. The learned counsel for the petitioner failed to answer this query, however, he fairly accepted that no challenge has been made to the order dated 10.09.2004, which was issued much before the order of removal passed in his case by the Works Manager. 17. This Court while going through the order dated 10.09.2004 noted that the said order was issued so as to remove certain [2026:RJ-JP:2051-DB] (10 of 11) [CW-370/2015] difficulties in regard to passing of the order of removal, etc. by a person holding relevant pay-scale by the respondent and therefore, a list of competent authorities drawing respective pay- scale were specified and empowered to pass the punishment orders in respect of Group-C and D employees as mentioned in the order. 18. In view of the above discussions and specifically after going through the order dated 10.09.2004, the considering challenge as made by the petitioner in regard to his removal on the ground that the same was not passed by the competent authority and was bad in law in terms of Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India, the law as cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Krishna Kumar (supra) and State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. Raj Mohammad (supra), according to this Court are not applicable to the facts of the present case, keeping in mind, the limited issue on which the notices were issued by the Co-ordinate Bench by order dated 05.12.2016, this Court finds that the petitioner failed to satisfy from the pleadings as well as on the grounds raised and more specifically he failed to counter the issue of competent authorities as specified by the order dated 10.09.2004, as placed on record by the respondent. 19. As the present case pertains to the issue of securing appointment by fraud and misrepresentation in a category to which the person did not belongs, therefore, this Court after considering the recent judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police and Ors. Vs. Ex.Ct. Vinod Kumar in Civil Appeal No.13565/2025 decided on 12.11.2025 where the Hon’ble Apex Court held that once on the [2026:RJ-JP:2051-DB] (11 of 11) [CW-370/2015] basis of a forged degree or certificate a person gets appointment, such act is un-condonable. The relevant Para of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “8. Having considered the matter, we have no hesitation in holding that the orders passed by the CAT as well as by the High Court are unsustainable. The fact that once on the basis of a forged degree/certificate, a person gets appointment in the uniformed service of the country, that being the police, which is supposed to uphold the rule of law, the act of the respondent is un-condonable. The further fact which is admitted is that there is absolutely, no rebuttal by the respondent that the certificate/degree presented by him before the appellants at the time of his appointment and on the basis of which, he was appointed as a Constable, is genuine. Having perused the original records and the letter from the issuing authority which categorically stating that the degree/certificate in question is forged and fabricated leaves no doubt that such fact cannot be controverted. Thus, no holding of a de-partmental inquiry in the particular facts and circumstances of the present case may not be a factor to vitiate the final order of dismissal from service passed against the respondent. Thus, on this short point, the appeal is al- lowed and the order of the CAT as affirmed by the High Court stands set aside. The punishment of dismissal from service awarded to the respondent by the concerned appellants stands restored. No order as to costs.” 20. This Court after considering the judgment passed in the case of Ex.Ct. Vinod Kumar (supra) and after considering the arguments as raised by the learned counsel for the petition finds no merit in the petition. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed. 21. No order as to costs. 22. All pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Dushyant/39