2018 (3) TMI 714 - HC - Indian Laws

Restoration of validity of orders - respondent s unauthorized absence from duty and his absence from the Head Quarters during the period of his suspension, without prior approval of the competent authority - Disciplinary Authority had formed an opinion that a proper inquiry had not been conducted in this case - grievance of the petitioner/UOI is that the Tribunal erred in holding that in the garb of a further inquiry, a de novo inquiry had been ordered or that while remitting the inquiry, another Inquiry Officer had been appointed with a motive to get a favourable report. Held that - It is not the case of the petitioner that the first Inquiry Officer (Ms.Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial), CESTAT) was not available or incapacitated to conduct the inquiry, when the inquiry had been remitted. From the inquiry report submitted by the first Inquiry Officer, it is clear that specific findings have been given in respect of each of the charges leveled against the respondent. We are unable to decipher any lawful reasons for the Disciplinary Authority to remit the inquiry report back to the IO for directing a further inquiry and simultaneously, for appointing some other Inquiry Officer and another Presenting Officer, despite the inquiry having been duly conducted, by giving an opportunity to both sides of leading evidence as per the list of witnesses and list of documents. The Tribunal has rightly held that such a procedure cannot be termed as a further inquiry but for all effect and purposes, a fresh inquiry or a de novo inquiry as a further inquiry is required to be held from the stage at which any infirmity in the procedure would have crept in, which is not the case herein. Even such a further inquiry has to be done by the same Inquiry Officer unless and until the said Inquiry Officer is unavailable or incapacitated to conduct the entire inquiry. The learned Tribunal cannot be faulted in holding that under Rule 15(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the Disciplinary Authority may remit the case to the same Inquiry Officer and not to a new Inquiry Officer. Petition dismissed with costs quantified as ₹ 10,000/-.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Central Administrative Tribunal's order dated 29.10.2014.
2. Legitimacy of the Disciplinary Authority's decision to remit the inquiry and appoint a new Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer.
3. Interpretation and application of Rule 15(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Central Administrative Tribunal's order dated 29.10.2014:
The petitioner, Union of India, challenged the Tribunal's order which set aside the Disciplinary Authority's decision to remit the inquiry and appoint new officers. The Tribunal held that the remittance of the inquiry and appointment of new officers amounted to a de novo inquiry, which is not permissible under Rule 15(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The Tribunal emphasized that a further inquiry should be conducted by the same Inquiry Officer unless they are unavailable or incapacitated. The Tribunal found that the Disciplinary Authority's reasons for remitting the inquiry were either extraneous or factually incorrect.

2. Legitimacy of the Disciplinary Authority's decision to remit the inquiry and appoint a new Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer:
The Disciplinary Authority remitted the inquiry report for reasons including the non-examination of certain grounds and evidence, and the absence of a written brief from the Presenting Officer. However, the Tribunal found these reasons to be unsubstantiated. The Tribunal noted that the Inquiry Officer had conducted a proper inquiry, examined the listed witnesses, and considered the available evidence. The Tribunal concluded that the Disciplinary Authority’s decision was not justified and was an attempt to obtain a favorable report by appointing new officers.

3. Interpretation and application of Rule 15(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965:
Rule 15(1) allows the Disciplinary Authority to remit the case to the Inquiring Authority for further inquiry and report, but this must be done by the same Inquiry Officer unless they are unavailable or incapacitated. The Tribunal and the Court both held that the Disciplinary Authority’s actions in this case did not comply with Rule 15(1). The Court reiterated that a further inquiry must address specific procedural infirmities and cannot be used to restart the inquiry process with new officers.

Conclusion:
The Court upheld the Tribunal's order, finding no illegality or infirmity in it. The Court agreed that the Disciplinary Authority's actions amounted to a de novo inquiry, which is not permitted under Rule 15(1). The writ petition was dismissed with costs of ?10,000.