1990 (4) TMI 290 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competent Authority to Initiate Disciplinary Proceedings
2. Interpretation of Relevant Rules
3. Delegation of Powers
4. Jurisdiction of Disciplinary Authorities
5. Impact of Prior Judicial Decisions

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Competent Authority to Initiate Disciplinary Proceedings:
The primary issue in these appeals is identifying the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Government servants. The appeals arise from two ministries: Defence and Railways, governed by the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules ("Civil Services rules") and the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules ("Railway rules"), respectively.

2. Interpretation of Relevant Rules:
The respondents argued that the Director, who initiated disciplinary proceedings, is not competent and that only the Scientific Adviser to the Government of India can do so. This argument is based on the interpretation of Rules 12 and 13 of the Civil Service Rules, which specify that the disciplinary authority must be the "appointing authority or the authority specified in the schedule." The schedule specifies the Scientific Adviser as the authority. However, the Director had been delegated the power to appoint Class III and Class IV employees under Rule 9(1) and its proviso.

3. Delegation of Powers:
The contention revolves around whether the delegation of appointment powers to the Director also includes disciplinary powers. The respondents argued that the delegation of appointment powers does not extend to disciplinary powers, citing Rule 2(a) which defines the "appointing authority" as the highest authority among those empowered to make appointments. The appellants countered that the Director, being the de facto appointing authority, is also competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings.

4. Jurisdiction of Disciplinary Authorities:
The court examined whether the Director, who appointed the respondents, could be considered the "appointing authority" for disciplinary purposes. The court concluded that the term "appointing authority" in Rule 2(a) refers to the authority to whom the power of appointment has been delegated, not the original authority specified in the schedule. This interpretation ensures that the rules remain workable and practical, particularly in large organizations like the Railways, where centralizing disciplinary powers would be impractical.

5. Impact of Prior Judicial Decisions:
The court considered previous decisions, including Dharam Dev v. Union and Roop Chand v. State, to determine their relevance. It concluded that these decisions did not directly address the issue at hand and were not conclusive. The court also noted that the principle from Roop Chand, which treats the actions of a delegate as those of the principal, does not apply to the context of disciplinary proceedings under the Civil Service Rules and Railway Rules.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and directed the Tribunal/High Court to pass fresh orders in light of this judgment. It clarified that disciplinary proceedings initiated by authorities to whom powers have been delegated are valid, provided they comply with the rules. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with specific cases remanded for further consideration based on the merits.