Delegated appointing authority may initiate disciplinary proceedings where service rules tie that power to the actual appointing nexus.

Under the civil services and railway servants rules, "appointing authority" for disciplinary action was construed harmoniously with the definition and appointment provisions. The Supreme Court held that the relevant authority is the one empowered to make, or that actually made, the appointment through delegation for the concerned post or grade, not both the delegator and the delegate. The delegating superior was not treated as the appointing authority for disciplinary initiation merely because it retained other powers. Accordingly, disciplinary proceedings could validly be instituted by the delegated appointing authority, and the contrary view was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether, under the civil services rules and the railway servants rules, disciplinary proceedings could validly be instituted by the authority who had been delegated the power of appointment, or whether only the higher authority specified in the schedule remained competent to initiate such proceedings.

Analysis: The expression "appointing authority" in the disciplinary provisions had to be read with the definition clause and the appointment provisions. On a harmonious construction, the relevant appointing authority was the authority to whom the power of appointment had been delegated and who actually made the appointment, not both the delegator and the delegate. The definition was intended to identify the authority having the real appointing nexus for the concerned post or grade, while preserving the protection against action by an authority lower than the true appointing authority. The Court also held that delegation of appointment power did not, by itself, denude the delegating authority of all authority in every context, but that circumstance did not make the delegator the appointing authority for disciplinary purposes where the rules drew a distinction between appointment and discipline.

Conclusion: The delegated appointing authority was competent to institute disciplinary proceedings, and the restrictive view that only the higher scheduled authority could do so was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where service rules define "appointing authority" by reference to the authority empowered to make or who actually made the appointment, the expression must be confined to the authority having that direct appointing nexus for the concerned post or grade, and it does not automatically include the delegating superior authority for disciplinary initiation.

---