Procedural irregularity in disciplinary enquiries does not vitiate proceedings absent prejudice; incidental authority may refer findings for major penalty.

Appointment of a legal adviser as Enquiry Officer did not vitiate the disciplinary proceedings where the employee participated without objection and showed no prejudice; the defect was treated as a waivable procedural irregularity under the Staff Regulations. The Managing Director, though not competent to impose a major penalty, could validly place the enquiry findings before the Board of Directors because the Board was the appointing and penalty authority for Class A officers, and the absence of an express procedural rule did not invalidate that step. The disciplinary action was sustained and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether appointment of a legal adviser as Enquiry Officer vitiated the disciplinary proceedings; (ii) whether the Managing Director could validly place the enquiry findings before the Board of Directors for imposition of a major penalty.

Issue (i): whether appointment of a legal adviser as Enquiry Officer vitiated the disciplinary proceedings.

Analysis: Regulation 41(3) of the relevant Staff Regulations was read as permitting delegation of the enquiry function, and the delinquent employee had participated in the enquiry without objection. The Court applied the doctrines of waiver, estoppel, acquiescence, and prejudice, holding that a mere defect in the choice of Enquiry Officer does not automatically nullify the proceedings when no prejudice is shown. The proceeding was treated as a domestic disciplinary enquiry rather than a court proceeding requiring strict jurisdictional objections at the threshold.

Conclusion: The challenge to the appointment of the legal adviser as Enquiry Officer failed and was held against the appellant.

Issue (ii): whether the Managing Director could validly place the enquiry findings before the Board of Directors for imposition of a major penalty.

Analysis: The Board was the appointing authority for Class A officers and the competent authority for major penalties. Since the Managing Director could not impose such punishment, the Court held that he had the incidental authority to place the enquiry report before the Board for decision. The absence of an express procedural rule was held not to invalidate the process.

Conclusion: The reference of the matter to the Board of Directors was upheld and the contention was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The disciplinary action was sustained, the High Court's judgment was left undisturbed, and the employee's challenge to the dismissal from service did not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural irregularity in the appointment of an Enquiry Officer does not vitiate disciplinary proceedings absent timely objection and demonstrated prejudice, and the authority competent to impose a major penalty may be approached through the incidental powers of the initiating authority.

---