UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusN.V. PHANNENDRAN

                       UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                                A
                                  v.
                         N.V. PHANNENDRAN

                            AUGUST 29, 1995

             [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]                            B

        Se1vice Law.

      Railway SeJVants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968: Rules 2(a)
and 9.
                                                                              c
      Removal-Punishment of-Competent authority to impose-Held
Divisional Railway Manager is competent auth01ity.

      The respondent challenged his removal from service before the
Central Administrative Tribunal on the ground that the Divisional Rail- D
way Manager was not the appointing authority and therefore he was not
competent to impose the punishment of removal from service. Accepting
the contention the Tribunal set aside the order of removal. Union of India
preferred appeal to this Court.

        Allowing the appeal, this Court                                       E
       HELD : The ratio of judgment in S. Daniel's* case squarely covers
the point of controversy in question. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal
is clearly illegal. (142-E]

      Scientific Adviser to the Minist1y of Defence and 01:f. v. Daniel and   F
Ors., [1990) 2 SCR 440, relied on.

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8116 of
1995.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 15.11.89 of the Central Ad-           G
ministrative Tribunal at Ernakulam Bench, Kerala in T.A. No. 1008of1986.

      N.N. Goswamy, Indra Sawhney, A.K. Sharma and B. Krishna Prasad
for the Appellants.

        M.M. Kashyap for the Respondent.                                      H
                                  141
    142                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A         The following Order of the Court was delivered :

          Leave granted.

          The only contention raised before the Central Administrative
    Tribunal was that the Divisional Railway Manger, Railways, was not ap-
B   pointing authority. Therefore, he was not competent to impose the punish-
    ment 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.


c Minist1yTheofcontroversy is no longer res integra. In Scientific Adviser to the
               Defence and Others v. S. Daniel and    Otlw:~, (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. There-
D   fore, 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
E
    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,
F   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 :
G
             "The only point that was urged before us by the learned counsel
             appearing for the applicant is that Division Railway Manager not
             being the appointing authority is not competent to }mpose a
             punishment of removal from service on the applicant who is a
H            Travelling Ticket Examiner in the pay scale of Rs. 425-640."
                       U.0.1. v. N.V. PHANNENDRAN                       143

Since the Controversy was only limited to this point before the Tribunal,     A
we do not find any justification to remit the matter.

         The appeal is accordingly allowed but in the circumstances without
costs.

T.N.A.                                                     Appeal allowed.