SCIENTIFIC ADVISER TO THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus S. DANIEL AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1990] 2 S.C.R. 440 · Decided: 10-04-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RANGANATHAN · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
SCIENTIFIC ADVISER TO THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 
AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
S. DANIEL AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
APRIL 10, 1990 
[S. RANGANATHAN AND K.N. SAIKIA, JJ.] 
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 
1965: Rules 2(a), 9( 1), Proviso, 12, 13 and Schedule Part V, Item No. 
XIV. 
Ministry of Defence-Research Laboratories attached to Minis-
try-Civil posts-Class III Employees-'Appointing Authority'-
Authority to Institute Disciplinary proceedings-Who is-Specified 
Jlppointing authority, Scientific Adviser-Delegation of power of 
appointment to Director-Appointments made by Director-Initiation 
D of disciplinary proceedings by Director-Validity of. 
Rule 2(a)-Only envisage the authority to whom the power of 
appointment has been delegated and not both Delegator and Delega-
tee-Expression "Appointing Authority"-Scope and meaning of-
Whether means highest of authorities mentioned in sub-clause (i) to 
E 
(iv )-Expression "whichever is highest authority"-whether governs 
only sub-clause (iv) of Rule 2(a) and not other clauses-Purpose of 
Rule 2ja) explained. 
Rule 9( 1)-Proviso--Power of Appointment-Delegation of-
Consequences of Delegation-Both authorities viz. Delegator and 
f' 
Delegatee whether can be treated as 'authority empowered to appoint.' 
Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968: Rules 
2( l)(a), 2( l)(c), 7 & 8/Railway Establishment Code. 
Railway Servanrs-Group C · and D employees-Appointing 
G authority-Descip/inary authority-Who is-Competent appointing 
authority, General Manager-Delegation of power of .appointment to 
Zonal Officers/Divisional Superintendents-Appointments made by 
Divisional Superintendents/Zonal Officers-Initiation of Disciplinary 
Proceedings by Divisional Superintendents-Validity of. 
Administrative Law-Delegation of power of Appointment-
440 
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE v. S. DANIEL 
441 
Consequences of Delegation-Scope of Delegate's power-Theory of 
imputation to the principal the acts of the delegate-Whether applicable 
to Service Rules which make distinction between power to appoint and 
power to take disciplinary proceedings-Power to take disciplinary 
proceedings-Whether adjunct to power of appointment. 
General Clauses Act, 1897: Section 16-Applicability of-Whe-
ther confers power on the factual appointing authority to conduct disci-
plinary proceedings or impose penalties. 
Practice and Procedure: Special Leave Petition-Dismissal in 
limine_:_Supreme Court-Whether precluded from considering the issue 
in appeal on merits. 
The respondents were holding class III civil posts in the Research 
Laboratories attached to the Ministry of Defence. Under the Central 
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, their 
'appointing authority' was the Scien.tific Adviser. But the appointing 
authority, the Scientific Adviser, delegated his power of appointment to the 
Director under Proviso to Rule 9(1). Pursuant to the delegated power, 
the Director appointed the respondents. Subsequently, the Director 
initiated disciplinary proceedings against the respondents. 
Similarly for the respondents, in the connected appeals, belonging 
to Group C and D employees of the Railways the competent authority, 
prescribed under the Railway Establishment Code, to make appoint-
ments was the General Manager. But the General Manager delegated his 
power of appointment to Zonal Officers/Divisional Superintendents. 
Pursuant to the delegated power the Divisional Superintendents 
appointed the respondents. Subsequently, disciplinary proceedings 
were initiated against the respondents by the Divisional Superinten-
dents. 
The respondents challenged the disciplinary proceedings before 
the Central Administrative Tribunal contending that they were without 
jurisdiction since the Director and the Divisional Superintending were 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
not competent to initiate the disc!J>linary proceedings. The Central 
G 
Administrative Tribunal accepted the plea and quashed the proceedings. 
In appeals to this Court it was contended on behalf of the respon-
dents fi) that the Director was not competent to initiate disciplinary 
proceedings against them and only the Scientific Adviser, a higher 
authority, could do so; the expression "whichever authority is the high-
H 
442 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1990] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
est authority" in Rule 2(a) governs only sub-clause (iv) of Rule and thi< 
expression seeks to ensure that though the power to appoint may have beeu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.