The discretion granted to the Disciplinary Authority under Rule 14(8) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, is absolute and cannot be interfered with unless it is found that the order has been made out of sheer caprice and without regard for relevant circumstances.

BALASUBRAHMANYAN, J.

1. The appellants in this writ appeal are a hierarchy of Disciplinary Authorities functioning in the Postal Department. They are: The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Madurai Dt, the Director of Postal Services, Tamil Nadu Circle and Posts and Telegraphs Board, New Delhi. Their appeal before us is against a writ of certiorari issued by K.N. Mudaliyar, J. The learned Judge issued the writ in a writ petition filed by one Hanumanthan. This individual was originally a Postal clerk and later an Assistant Postmaster in Madurai. On 22nd October 1968 he was compulsorily retired from service, as a punishment for misconduct. This order of penalty was made in the first instance by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Madurai. It was later confirmed by the Director of Postal Services, Madras, in appeal and by the Posts and Telegraphs Board, Delhi, in review. Hanumanthan moved this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for quashing the orders of the three authorities. By order dated 20th July 1973, the learned Judge set aside all the three orders and directed the reinstatement of Hanumanthan in service. While doing so, the learned Judge did not go into the merits of the impugned orders. He only examined the procedural aspects of the inquiry in the disciplinary proceedings. Even on the procedural aspect the only error he found was that the Disciplinary Authority did not grant Hanumanthans request to engage a lawyer to defend him at the inquiry. According to the learned Judge, the denial of representation by counsel vitiated the entire disciplinary proceedings.

2. Learned counsel for the Disciplinary Authorities contended before us in this appeal that the learned Judge was in error both in his reasoning and in the operative portion of his decision. But before proceeding to examine the contentions urged, the background facts of the case may be brieffy set out.

3. Hanumanthan entered service as a clerk in the Post Office, Madurai, in the year 1941. He was subsequently promoted as Assistant post master. During the period January 1964 to August 1965, he dealt with a number of applications for wireless receiver licences. Under the Post Office procedure, these applications had to be accompanied by relevant sale memos evidencing the purchase of wireless receiver sets. Some of the applications which passed through Hanumanthans hands during this period and the licences issued by him on the basis of such applications were the subject of subsequent departmental scrutiny. They related to transistors and radio sets of foreign origin. The relevant applications for licences and the supporting sale memos filed in the post office made it appear that the receiving sets had been purchased from a local dealer by name A.R.S. Chari. The sale memos were found signed in the name of this dealer. Investigation, however, revealed that this dealer had never dealt with the sets in question. The signatures in the sales memos as well as those in the applications for licences were found to be in Hanumanthans handwriting.

4. On the results of these investigations, the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Madurai Dn, Madurai, as the concerned Disciplinary Authority framed charges of misconduct. The principal charge was that Hanumanthan had issued wireless receiver licences to 41 persons on the basis of bogus sale memos and application forms prepared and signed by him. It was stated in the charge memos that loss resulted to the Government in so far as the owners of foreign transisters escaped the full levy of BRL fees and surcharge which they would otherwise have been liable to pay for unauthorised possession of radio sets. An Officer was specially appointed to hear evidence and conduct the enquiry into the charges. The Inquiry Officer gave Hanumanthan due notice of the hearings. He however, defaulted to appear before the Inquiry Officer at the initial stages of the enquiry. He appeared at subsequent hearings. He inspected the records.