9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 714X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. The witnesses proposed to be examined by the Department and named in the list of witnesses were Smt.P.K.Neela Reddy, SPS, CESTAT, Bangalore and Sh.Ahswath Narayan, Peon, CESTAT, Bangalore. The list of documents contained the details of seven documents to be proved during the inquiry against the charged officer/respondent. 3. After conducting the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer (Ms.Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) CESTAT), submitted her report on 26.12.2012 to the effect that both the charges had not been proved, alongwith the reasons in support thereof. 4. The Disciplinary Authority, vide its order No.A.28012/1/2013AD.IC (CESTAT) dated 25.09.2013, formed an opinion that a proper inquiry had not been conducted in this case. In exercise of powers conferred by Rule 15(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the Disciplinary Authority remitted back the inquiry report to the Inquiry Officer, for the following reasons:- "(i) Grounds for rejection of leave mentioned by Sh.T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) and controlling officer of CO were not examined. (ii) Fact about the arrest warrants issued against the CO during the period of absence, was either not brought to the knowledge of IO or not cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the report to the Disciplinary Authority holding that the charges had not been proved against the respondent. The Disciplinary Authority, after going through the inquiry report and for the reasons recorded in the order dated 25.09.2013, in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 15(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 had remitted the case for further inquiry. Merely because a new Inquiry Officer and a new Presenting Officer were appointed vide two separate orders of the even date, it does not have the effect of a de novo inquiry, to obtain a motivated report. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner/UOI submitted that under Rule 15(1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the Disciplinary Authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the Inquiring Authority for further inquiry and report. The Inquiring Authority thereupon proceeds to hold a further inquiry according to the provisions of Rule 14, as far as may be. She has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. Shashi Bhushan and Ors. reported as 2011(1) SCT 92 (P&H), in support of her contentions. 10. We may note that the aforementioned three orders, all dated 25.09.2013, were challenged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y are either quite extraneous or factually incorrect....." (emphasis added) 11. In the decision, Union of India & Ors. vs. Shashi Bhushan and Ors. (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the fact situation was that vide order dated 04.10.2006, the Disciplinary Authority therein ordered for holding a de novo inquiry in the case from the stage of inspection/supply of listed documents, as per Annexure-III of the charge memo. On the basis of the order dated 04.10.2006 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Chief General Manager Telecom, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh, in exercise of powers conferred in sub-Rule (2) read with sub-Rule (22) of Rule 14 of the Rules, passed an order dated 31.10.2006, replacing the Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges. The order of the Disciplinary Authority was upheld for the following reasons:- "13. Commenting on para 12 of the judgment in K.R. Deb's case (supra) (AIR 1971 SC 1447) their Lordships of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in P. Thayagarajan's case (supra) (AIR 1999 SC 449) has held in para 8 of its judgment as under:- "8. A careful reading of this passage will make it clear that this Court notices that if in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les, the order passed by the disciplinary authority deserves to be upheld." (emphasis added). 12. Reverting to the facts of the instant case, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 25.09.2013, had remitted the inquiry for the reasons given hereunder:- "New Delhi, the 25th September, 2013 ORDER Whereas an Inquiry under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was held against Sh.S.K.Verma, Assistant Registrar, CESTAT for remaining absent from duty unauthorizedly. AND Whereas the Inquiry Officer Ms.Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial), CESTAT vide her Inquiry report dated 26.12.12. held both charges against the charged officer, viz. Sh.S.K.Verma, Assistant Registrar, CESTAT as "Disproved". AND Whereas the competent Disciplinary Authority, after careful consideration of the facts of the case and the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that a proper Inquiry has not been conducted in this case in view of the following reasons: i) Grounds for rejection of leave mentioned by Sh.T.K.Jayaraman, Member (T) and controlling officer of CO were not examined. ii) Fact about the arrest warrants issued against the CO during the perio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich have been made available by the Disciplinary Authority and nothing else......" 14. 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, annexed with the chargesheet. 15. In our opinion, 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 wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
