1998 INSC 0597
                                    Asstt. Supdt. of Post Offices and Others

                                                           Vs

                                                   G. Mohan Nair

                                         Civil Appeal No. 10662 of 1996

                                     (Sujata V. Manohar, G. B. Patanaik JJ)

                                                      12.08.1998

                                                        ORDER

1. The respondent at the material time was working as Extra-Departmental Delivery Agent,
Pallipuram Post Office in Kerala. With effect from 2-11-1988, he was 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. 3991 in the government account.

2. The disciplinary authority in respect of the respondent was the Assistant Superintendent of Post
Offices, Appellant 1 herein. However, since Appellant 1 was also one of the material witnesses in
the disciplinary proceedings, the Chief Postmaster General appointed the 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 lead 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.