http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: N.V. PHANEENDRAN

DATE OF JUDGMENT29/08/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  (6)  45        1995 SCALE  (5)355

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      The  only   contention  raised   before   the   Central Administrative Tribunal  was  that  the  Divisional  Railway Manager,  Railways,   was  not   the  appointing  authority. Therefore, he  was not competent to impose the punishment of removal from  service. That  found favour with the Tribunal. Accordingly, the order of removal from service was set aside by the Tribunal in its order dated November 15, 1989.      The controversy is no longer res integra. In Scientific Adviser to  the Ministry  of Defence and others v. s. Daniel and others  [1980 (2)  SCR  440],  a  bench  of  this  Court interpreted the  Rules in a common judgment. On a reading of Rule 2(a) and Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,  it was  held that it would be impossible for the President  to deal  with all the disciplinary matters of the   Government   employees.   Therefore,   delegation   of appointment power  was  made  to  the  General  Manager  and disciplinary power  was delegated to the Divisional Manager. The General  Manager is not the delegator. Consequently, the doctrine that a delegator cannot further delegate his powers to the  delegatee has  no application.  As a  result, it was held that  the delegation  of power  to  impose  appropriate punishment is  permissible. Since  the ratio squarely covers the point  of controversy, we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal is clearly illegal.      It is  next contended  that though  several contentions have been raised on merits, the Tribunal had only dealt with on this issue and, therefore, an opportunity may be given to the respondent  to agitate  those questions by remitting the matter to  the Tribunal. We find it difficult to accept this contention. It  is true that though several points appear to have  been   raised,  but   before  the  Tribunal  the  only contention argued  for the  respondent was  as extracted  in paragraph 4 of the order of the Tribunal. It says:      "The only point that was urged before us

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    by the learned counsel appearing for the      applicant is that the Divisional Railway      Manager   not   being   the   appointing      authority is  not competent  to impose a      punishment of  removal from  service  on      the applicant who is a Travelling Ticker      Examiner in  the pay  scale  of  Rs.425-      640." Since the  controversy was only limited to this point before the Tribunal,  we do not find any justification to remit the matter.      The  appeal   is  accordingly   allowed  but   in   the circumstances without costs.