VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 466
863
Appointment of inquiry officer by regular disciplinary
authority before appointment of adhoc Disciplinary
authority on account of disciplinary authority
appearing as witness, causes no prejudice.
Asst. Supdt. of Post Offices vs. G. Mohan Nair,
1998(6) SLR SC 783
The respondent, Extra Departmental Delivery Agent in
Kerala, was proceeded against departmentally for failure to deliver
money orders. The disciplinary authority, Assistant Superintendent
of Post Offices issued a charge-sheet on 4-4-1990 and appointed an
inquiry officer and presenting officer on 17-7-1990. The said
disciplinary authority appeared as a witness at the inquiry and gave
evidence. As such he appointed Deputy Superintendent of Post
Offices, a superior officer as an adhoc disciplinary authority to deal
with the case, on 24-5-90 and the latter imposed the penalty of
removal from service. The Central Administrative Tribunal set aside
the proceedings on the ground that the inquiry officer was appointed
by the original disciplinary authority and not by the adhoc disciplinary
authority.
The Supreme Court held that there is no material to indicate that any
prejudice was caused to the respondent and no bias or mala fides
has been made against the inquiry officer or the presenting officer
and the actual order has been passed by the ad hoc disciplinary
authority. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
(466)
(A) Public Servant — M.P. / MLA
Members of Parliament are public servants in terms
of sub-cl. (viii) of cl. (c) of sec. 2 of P.C. Act, 1988.
(B) Sanction of prosecution — for MP / MLA
Sanction is not necessary for prosecution of Member of
Parliament.