Judgment

RANGANATHAN, J- In the Special Leave Petitions, we grant leave and proceed to dispose of all these appeals by a common order. It may be noted that, except in C.A. 3044/89, the Union of India is the appellant.

The short common question arising in this large batch of appeals is: who is the authority competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Government servants who are the parties here (hereinafter referred to, for convenience, as the respondents)? There are two sets of appeals before us, one arising out of proceedings in the Ministry of Defence, and the other in the Ministry of Railways. The rules governing the former are the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the Civil Services rules") and those governing the latter are the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Railway rules).

S/Shri G.B. Pai, Anil Dev Singh, P.A. Choudhary, Madhava Reddy, B. Kanta Rao, A. Subba Rao, A.T.M. Sampath, R.D. Upadhyay and others have argued the matters at length and in great detail and we proceed to dispose of these appeals after considering all the aspects urged before us.

We shall take Daniels case (C.A. Nos. 1210 to 1217 of 1,980) as illustrative of the cases under the Civil Service Rules. Though the employees in these and connected matters are Class III employees of Research Laboratories attached to the Ministry of Defence (shortly referred to as DRDL, DMAL, DERL and DLRL), they are serving in civil posts therein and, hence, governed by the Civil Service Rules. They had been appointed by the Director of the Laboratory. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them by the Director. There is, therefore, no possibility of any eventual violation of the constitutional prohibition in Article 311(1) against a Government servant being dismissed or removed from office by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority. Still, the respondents contend that the Director is not competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against them and that it is only the Scientific Adviser to the Government of India--a higher authority--that can do so. This contention, based on the relevant provisions of the Civil Service Rules, proceeds on the following lines. Rules 12 and 13 of the Civil Service Rules deal with this topic and read as follows:

"12. Disciplinary Authorities--(1)The President may impose any of the penalties specified in rule 11 on any Government servant.

(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-rule (1), but subject to the provisions of sub-rule (4), any of the penal- ties specified in rule 11 may be imposed on--

(a) xx xx xx

(b) a person appointed to a Central Civil post included in the General Central Service, by the authority specified in this behalf by a general or special order of the President or, where no such order has been made, by the appointing authority or the authority specified in the Schedule in this behalf.

13. Authority to institute proceedings--

(1) The President or any other authority empowered by him by general or special order may--

(a) institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government servant;

(b) direct a disciplinary authority to institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government servant on whom that disciplinary authority is competent to impose under I these rules any of the penalties specified in rule 11.

(2) A disciplinary authority competent under these rules to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of rule 11 may institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government servant for the imposition of any of the penal- ties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of rule 11 notwithstanding that such disciplinary authority is not competent under these rules to impose any of the latter penalties." In these cases, the disciplinary proceedings have been instituted neither by the President nor by an authority directed by him to do so, nor by any other authority empowered by