ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The only contention raised before the Central Administrative Tribunal was that the Divisional Railway Manager, Railways, was not the appointing authority. Therefore, he was not competent to impose the punishment of removal from service. That found favour with the Tribunal. Accordingly, the order of removal from service was set aside by the Tribunal in its order dated 15-11-1989.

3. The controversy is no longer res integra. In Scientific Adviser to the Ministry of Defence v. S. Daniel {1990 Supp SCC 374 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 355 }, a Bench of this Court interpreted the Rules in a common judgment. On a reading of Rule 2(a) and Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, it was held that it would be impossible for the President to deal with all the disciplinary matters of the government employees. Therefore, delegation of appointment power was made to the General Manager and disciplinary power was delegated to the Divisional Manager. The General Manager is not the delegator. Consequently, the doctrine that a delegator cannot further delegate his powers to the delegatee has no application. As a result, it was held that the delegation of power to imp