A delegate cannot further delegate appointing power; removal must be ordered by the competent appointing authority.

The respondent was appointed as a Token Porter on compassionate grounds.

The Assistant Operations Manager, Moradabad, imposed the major penalty of removal from service on 11 May 2015.

His departmental appeal and subsequent petition under Rule 31 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 were rejected.

The respondent thereafter filed OA No. 4015/2023 before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

Relying on the Railway Board Circular dated 6 February 1991 and Schedule II to the Discipline and Appeal Rules, he contended that the Assistant Operations Manager lacked authority to impose removal from service.

The Tribunal accepted the challenge, set aside the removal order, reinstated the respondent, and reserved liberty to the Railways to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law.

The Union of India challenged that decision before the High Court.

The Railways contended that although the Divisional Railway Manager had sanctioned the compassionate appointment, the appointment order was issued by the Assistant Personnel Officer, who was of equivalent rank to the Assistant Operations Manager; consequently, the latter was competent to remove the respondent.

The writ petition also raised a plea that the respondent’s OA was barred by limitation.

1. Whether the Assistant Operations Manager, Moradabad, was competent to impose the penalty of removal from service on the respondent.

2. Whether the issuance of the formal appointment order by the Assistant Personnel Officer made that officer, rather than the Divisional Railway Manager, the respondent’s Appointing Authority.

3. Whether the High Court could entertain the plea that the respondent’s original application before the Tribunal was barred by limitation when that plea had not been argued before the Tribunal.

The Court applied the Railway Board Circular dated 6 February 1991, under which the power to make compassionate appointments vested in the General Manager, with authority to redelegate it to Divisional Railway Managers and specified senior officers; the delegated authority could not further delegate the substantive power of appointment.

It applied the principle delegatus non potest delegare, namely, that a delegate cannot further delegate the delegated power.

Under Schedule II to the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, the Assistant Operations Manager’s disciplinary powers did not include the penalties under clauses (vii) to (ix) of Rule 6, including removal from service; Note I permitted such penalties to be imposed by the Appointing Authority or an authority superior to it.

The Court also relied on State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak, (1982) 2 SCC 463, for the principle that where an argument allegedly raised before a court is not recorded or considered, the proper remedy is to approach that same court for correction, rather than raise the issue for the first time in a higher proceeding.

The Railways’ own pleadings acknowledged that the power to appoint Group C and Group D employees had been delegated to the Divisional Railway Manager and that the respondent’s appointment had been sanctioned by the Divisional Railway Manager.

The appointment letter itself stated that the respondent’s appointment had been sanctioned by the Divisional Railway Manager, while the Assistant Personnel Officer merely issued the consequential formal communication.

The Court held that this ministerial issuance of the appointment order did not make the Assistant Personnel Officer the Appointing Authority, nor could the delegated power be treated as having been further delegated.

Since the Divisional Railway Manager remained the Appointing Authority and the Assistant Operations Manager lacked authority under Schedule II to impose removal, the removal order was jurisdictionally invalid.

As to limitation, the Court noted that no limitation objection had been argued before the Tribunal and that the counter-affidavit merely alleged “long delay” without setting out a proper limitation defence.

Accordingly, the plea was not entertained.

The Tribunal’s order setting aside the removal, reinstating the respondent, and granting liberty to the Railways to initiate disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law was upheld.

The limitation objection was rejected as it had not been properly raised before the Tribunal.

The writ petition was dismissed in limine, with no order as to costs.