2015 (2) TMI 953 - SC - Indian Laws

Violation of The All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 - Rejection of Enquiry report - Power of state to Second enquiry and appoint a Board of Enquiry - Rule 8(3) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 - Held that - All the parties - the appellant, the respondents and the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court proceeded on the basis that the IMPUGNED order constituting a two member Enquiry Board under Rule 8(3) of the DISCIPLINE Rules is an order constituting such a Board under the provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850. We do not see any basis for such a conclusion. The IMPUGNED order nowhere refers to the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, nor there is anything in Rule 8(3) which suggests that whenever a multi-member Board is appointed as an Enquiring Authority, such a Board could be appointed only under provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act. The language of Rule 8(2) is wide enough to enable the disciplinary authority to appoint either a single member Enquiring Authority or a multi-member Board to inquire into the misconduct of a delinquent officer. The issue is not really whether the Enquiring Authority should be a single member or a multi member body, but whether a second inquiry such as the one under challenge is permissible. A Constitution Bench of this Court in K.R. Deb 1971 (4) TMI 94 - SUPREME COURT , examined the question in the context of Rule 15(1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. It was held that there is no provision in Rule 15 for completely setting aside previous inquiries on the ground that the report of the Inquiring Officer or Officers does not appeal to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority has enough powers to reconsider the evidence itself and come to its own conclusion under Rule 9. The scheme of Rule 8 of the DISCIPLINE Rules and Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 are similar. Therefore, the principle laid down in Deb s case 1971 (4) TMI 94 - SUPREME COURT , in our opinion, would squarely apply to the case on hand. We are at a loss to comprehend how the filing of the writ petition containing allegations that the Government of India is lax in discharging its constitutional obligations of establishing the rule of law can be said to amount to either failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty or of indulging in conduct unbecoming of a member of the service. Even otherwise, the IMPUGNED order, in our opinion is wholly untenable. The purpose behind the proceedings appears calculated to harass the appellant since he dared to point out certain aspects of mal-administration in the Government of India. The whole attempt appears to be to suppress any probe into the question of black money by whatever means fair or foul. The present impugned proceedings are nothing but a part of the strategy to intimidate not only the appellant but also to send a signal to others who might dare in future to expose any mal-administration. The right to judicial remedies for the redressal of either personal or public grievances is a constitutional right of the subjects (both citizens and non-citizens) of this country. Employees of the State cannot become members of a different and inferior class to whom such right is not available. The appeal is allowed. The judgment under appeal is set-aside. Consequently, the O.A. stands allowed as prayed for. The respondents are liable jointly and severally to pay costs to the appellant which is quantified at ₹ 5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs). Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of invoking Rule 8(3) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969.
2. Validity of the rejection of the Enquiry Officer's report.
3. Applicability of specific rules under the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968.
4. Whether a second inquiry is permissible under the circumstances.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of invoking Rule 8(3) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969:
The appellant challenged the invocation of Rule 8(3) of the Discipline Rules, arguing that it is illegal for the State to resort to the provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 after having appointed an Enquiry Officer under the Discipline Rules. The court observed that Rule 8(3) allows for the appointment of a Board as an Inquiring Authority, which can consist of multiple members. The court clarified that the language of Rule 8(2) is broad enough to enable the disciplinary authority to appoint either a single member or a multi-member Board to inquire into the misconduct of a delinquent officer. The court found no basis for the conclusion that the impugned order constituted a Board under the provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850.

2. Validity of the rejection of the Enquiry Officer's report:
The Enquiry Officer had exonerated the appellant of all charges, but the State rejected the report on the grounds that it was cursory and violated the mandate of Rules 8(15), 8(16), 8(20), and 8(24) of the Discipline Rules. The court found these grounds to be untenable. The court noted that the appellant admitted the factual correctness of the allegations, hence there were no facts to be investigated. The court also found that the length and elegance of the report should not affect its legality if the conclusions were justified. The court further observed that the State did not provide specific violations of the mentioned rules and that these rules did not apply since the appellant did not contest the factual allegations.

3. Applicability of specific rules under the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968:
The charges against the appellant were based on alleged violations of Rules 3(1), 7, 8(1), and 17 of the Conduct Rules. The court examined each rule in detail:
- Rule 17: The court found no application of this rule as it pertains to vindicating official acts, which was not the content of the charges.
- Rule 7: The court concluded that allegations of maladministration do not fall within the ambit of this rule, which prohibits criticism of government policies.
- Rule 8: The court noted that this rule prohibits giving evidence in inquiries without prior sanction, but it does not apply to judicial inquiries. The court emphasized that a writ petition filed in public interest does not constitute an inquiry under Rule 8.
- Rule 3(1): The court found that filing a writ petition alleging government malfeasance does not amount to failure to maintain integrity or devotion to duty.

4. Whether a second inquiry is permissible under the circumstances:
The court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in K.R. Deb v. The Collector of Central Excise, Shillong, which held that there can be only one inquiry unless there are specific circumstances justifying a further inquiry. The court found that the reasons given by the State for ordering a fresh inquiry were untenable. The court emphasized that dissatisfaction with the Enquiry Officer's report is not a valid ground for ordering a second inquiry. The court concluded that the impugned order was calculated to harass the appellant and suppress any probe into allegations of maladministration.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the judgment under appeal was set aside. The court found the impugned order to be untenable and harassing. The respondents were ordered to pay costs to the appellant, quantified at Rs. 5,00,000. The court also suggested that the respondents could identify those responsible for the unwholesome action against the appellant and recover the amounts if they have the political will.