Controlling authority may start disciplinary proceedings, but further sub-delegation is invalid without express statutory permission.

A controlling authority may validly initiate disciplinary proceedings even where another authority is empowered to impose punishment, because the power to commence proceedings is distinct from the power to impose penalty. The text also explains that sub-delegation is valid only when expressly or necessarily authorised: powers conferred independently by subordinate legislation could be assigned further under Regulations 12(2) and 13(1), so the related delegation orders were upheld. By contrast, Rule 16(2) and the Standing Committee resolution were invalid only to the extent they permitted further delegation of powers already delegated under Section 94-A, and that limited infirmity did not undo the entire delegation scheme.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a Regional Director, as controlling authority, could validly initiate disciplinary proceedings against employees even though the power to impose punishment vested in another authority. (ii) Whether Rule 16(2), Regulation 12(2), Regulation 13(1), and the consequential delegation orders and resolution were valid, and to what extent they authorised further delegation.

Issue (i): Whether a Regional Director, as controlling authority, could validly initiate disciplinary proceedings against employees even though the power to impose punishment vested in another authority.

Analysis: The competence to impose penalty and the competence to initiate disciplinary proceedings are distinct. The law recognises that proceedings may be initiated by a superior or controlling authority, and it is not that the disciplinary authority itself must commence the proceedings. The Regional Director, being in charge of the region and the controlling authority, could validly initiate proceedings against the employees.

Conclusion: The initiation of disciplinary proceedings by the Regional Director was valid and did not suffer from legal infirmity.

Issue (ii): Whether Rule 16(2), Regulation 12(2), Regulation 13(1), and the consequential delegation orders and resolution were valid, and to what extent they authorised further delegation.

Analysis: A statutory delegate cannot further delegate powers unless such sub-delegation is authorised by express words or necessary implication. Powers conferred independently on the Director General under the Rules and Regulations were not merely delegated powers under Section 94-A, but separate statutory powers. On that basis, Regulation 12(2) and Regulation 13(1) validly authorised the Director General to identify another authority to impose penalties or institute proceedings. The delegation orders issued under those provisions were therefore valid. However, to the extent Rule 16(2) and the Standing Committee resolution enabled the Director General to further delegate powers or duties that had themselves been delegated to him by the Corporation or the Standing Committee under Section 94-A, they amounted to impermissible sub-delegation and were invalid to that limited extent.

Conclusion: The challenge to Regulation 12(2), Regulation 13(1), and the delegation orders failed, while Rule 16(2) and the Standing Committee resolution were invalid only insofar as they authorised further delegation of powers received under Section 94-A.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's ruling was set aside in part, the employees' applications were dismissed, and the delegation scheme was upheld except for the limited invalidity relating to further delegation of powers derived from Section 94-A.

Ratio Decidendi: A power conferred independently by subordinate legislation may be delegated as authorised by that legislation, but a power already delegated under a statute cannot be further delegated unless the parent statute permits sub-delegation expressly or by necessary implication.

---