- (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. 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 Office, 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.;