an enquiry against Group ‘C’ staff, the enquiry officer should be at least a Group ‘B’ Officer. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the enquiry officer appointed is a Group ‘C’ officer to which rank the petitioner also belongs and that therefore, his appointment itself is contrary to the aforementioned Circular. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that this issue does not appear to have been specifically raised. However, when we examine this issue with reference to the aforementioned Circular, we do not find any merit therein. The stipulation that the enquiry officer must be higher in rank to the delinquent is made to ensure that the enquiry officer is not overawed by the status of the delinquent, so that he will not soft-peddle the issue to the detriment of the departmental interests. In the instant case, the petitioner has not pleaded any specific prejudice caused due to the appointment of an enquiry officer equal in rank to him. In fact, the constitutional safeguard provided by Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India is that no person shall be removed by an authority other than by which he was appointed. Even assuming that the respondents have violated the aforementioned Circular by appointing a Group ‘C’ officer as an enquiry officer, the departmental proceedings cannot be held vitiated only for that reason, unless prejudice has been pleaded and proved by the petitioner. From the fact that no such prejudice is pleaded let alone proved by the petitioner, we do not find any merit in the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
