Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the removal from service of a railway employee, N.V. Phaneendran, who worked as a Travelling Ticker Examiner in the pay scale of Rs.425-640. The Divisional Railway Manager imposed the punishment of removal from service. Phaneendran challenged this removal before the Central Administrative Tribunal, contending that the Divisional Railway Manager was not the appointing authority and thus lacked competence to impose such a punishment. The Tribunal accepted this contention and by order dated November 15, 1989, set aside the removal from service. The Union of India and others, aggrieved by the Tribunal's decision, appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The only point urged on behalf of the respondent before the Tribunal, as recorded in paragraph 4 of the Tribunal's order, was that the Divisional Railway Manager not being the appointing authority was not competent to impose punishment of removal. The Supreme Court considered whether that finding was correct in law and whether the matter should be remitted to the Tribunal for consideration of other contentions. The Court referred to its earlier decision in Scientific Adviser to the Ministry of Defence and others v. S. Daniel and others, 1980 (2) SCR 440, which interpreted Rule 2(a) and Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. In that case, it was held that it would be impossible for the President to deal with all disciplinary matters of government employees, and therefore delegation of appointment power was made to the General Manager and disciplinary power was delegated to the Divisional Manager. The General Manager was not the delegator, so the doctrine that a delegator cannot further delegate his powers had no application. Consequently, delegation of power to impose appropriate punishment was permissible. Applying this binding ratio, the Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's order was clearly illegal. On the respondent's alternative prayer for remitting the matter to the Tribunal to agitate other contentions, the Court rejected it because the only point argued before the Tribunal was the competence of the Divisional Railway Manager, and there was no justification to remit the matter. The appeal was accordingly allowed, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and no costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Authority - Delegation of Power - Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, Rule 2(a), Rule 9 - The Divisional Railway Manager was held competent to impose removal from service on a Travelling Ticker Examiner despite not being the appointing authority because the President delegated appointment power to the General Manager and disciplinary power to the Divisional Manager; the General Manager was not a delegator, so the doctrine that a delegator cannot further delegate had no application - Held that the Tribunal's order setting aside removal was illegal and based on an erroneous premise; appeal allowed (Para 4). B) Service Law - Scope of Tribunal's Consideration - Remand - Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules - The respondent contended that other merits should be remitted, but the only point argued before the Tribunal was the competence of the Divisional Railway Manager; therefore there was no justification to remit the matter - Held that since the controversy was limited to that point, the matter need not be remitted and appeal allowed without costs (Para 4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Divisional Railway Manager, not being the appointing authority, was competent to impose punishment of removal from service on a railway employee; whether the matter should be remitted to the Tribunal for other contentions
Final Decision
The appeal was allowed. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal was set aside as clearly illegal. The removal from service by the Divisional Railway Manager was upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Delegation of disciplinary power to Divisional Railway Manager permissible under Rule 2(a) and Rule 9 of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules
- General Manager is not a delegator so doctrine of delegator cannot further delegate has no application
- ratio of Scientific Adviser to the Ministry of Defence v. S. Daniel is binding
- unless a point was argued before the Tribunal it cannot be remitted for fresh consideration
