SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Sujata V. Manohar and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 10662 of 1996. D/d. 12.8.1998

Asstt. Supdt. of Post Offices - Appellants

Versus

G. Mohan Nair - Respondent

Constitution of India, Articles 226 and 311 - Disciplinary proceedings - Competency of Disciplinary Authority - Appointment of an Enquiry Officer and a Presenting officer by the original disciplinary authority - As Disciplinary authority in respect of respondent appearing as material witness in the proceedings - Pursuant to the report of Enquiry Officer, ad hoc disciplinary authority imposed punishment of removal from service - Not invalid - No material to indicate that any prejudice has been caused to the respondent as a result of appointment as an Enquiry Officer and prosecuting officer by the original disciplinary authority.

[Paras 3 and 4]

JUDGMENT

Sujata V. Manohar, J. - The respondent at the material time was working as extra department delivery agent, Pallipuram Post Office in Kerala. With effect from 2.11.1988 he has put off duty because a disciplinary action was contemplated against him for not delivering 11 money orders, although he, thereafter, voluntarily credited the amount of Rs. 3,991/- in the Government account.

2. The disciplinary authority in respect of the respondent was the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices appellant No. 1 herein. However, since appellant No. 1 was also one of the material witnesses in the disciplinary proceedings, the Chief Post Master General appointed Deputy Superintendent of Post Offices, a superior officer as an ad hoc disciplinary authority to deal with the present case, on 24.5.1990. In the meanwhile, on 4.4.1990 a charge sheet had already been issued by the first appellant to the respondent. The first appellant also appointed on 17.7.1990 an enquiry officer and a presenting officer in respect of the present enquiry.

3. The enquiry was held by the Enquiry Officer and pursuant to the report of the Enquiry Officer the ad hoc disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment of removal from service. This was challenged by the respondent before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The Tribunal has set aside the proceedings and the order of the disciplinary authority only on the ground that the Enquiry Officer was appointed by the original disciplinary authority and not by the ad hoc disciplinary authority appointed in respect of the present case.

4. There is no material to indicate that any prejudice was caused to the respondent as a result of the appointment of an Enquiry Officer and a presenting officer by the original disciplinary authority. It is not even alleged that any such prejudice was caused to the respondent. No allegation of any kind whether of bias or mala fides has been made against the Enquiry Officer or the presenting Officer so appointed in the conduct of the enquiry. The actual order against the respondent has been passed by the ad hoc disciplinary authority after taking into account the report of the Enquiry Officer and the evidence led in the case. In the absence of any prejudice or any allegations of mala fides, the enquiry should not have been set aside and the action of the disciplinary authority should not have been quashed only on a technical ground that instead of the ad hoc disciplinary authority, the actual disciplinary authority had appointed the Enquiry Officer in respect of the present case.

5. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order including all directions given by the Tribunal in the said order. The appeal is allowed accordingly. There will, however, be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.

Appeal allowed.