188. Knowledge Spectrum – Discipline – ACTION ON INQUIRY REPORT 105
328. Can the Disciplinary Authority order for a fresh inquiry if it is not satisfied with the findings by the Inquiring Authority?
In the case of K R Deb Vs. Collector Of Central Excise [1971 AIR 1447, 1971 SCR 375 ] facts were as under:
The appellant was a sub-Inspector of Central Excise. A departmental inquiry was held against him in respect of a charge of misappropriation of Government money. The Inquiry Officer exonerated him. The Collector Central Excise, ordered another Inquiry Officer to make a report after taking further evidence. The second Inquiry Officer at first exonerated the appellant but later, after taking some more evidence as directed by the Collector, reported that although the charge against the appellant was not proved his conduct may not be above board. Dissatisfied with the report the Collector ordered a fresh inquiry to be held by a third officer. This time a verdict of guilty was given and the appellant was dismissed. The appellant's writ petition in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner Tripura having failed he appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The question for consideration was whether the multiple inquiries held against the appellant were in accordance with Rule 15 of the Classification and Control Rules. 1957,
Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the proceedings and the penalty order of dismissal holding that
Rule, 15 on the face of it really provides for one inquiry but it may be possible if in a particular case there has been no proper inquiry because some serious defect has crept into the inquiry or some important witnesses were not available at the time of the inquiry or were not examined for some other reason, the Disciplinary Authority may ask the Inquiry Officer to record further evidence. But there is no provision in r. 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 r. 9. The rules do not contemplate an action such as taken by the Collector in appointing a third Inquiry Officer. It seems that the Collector instead of taking responsibility himself was determined to get some officer to report against the appellant. The procedure adopted was not only against the rules but also harassing to the appellant. In the result it must be held that no proper inquiry has been conducted in the case and, therefore, there has been a breach of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. [380 EJ Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. It was contended that rule 15 of the Classification and Control Rules did not contemplate successive inquiries, and at any rate, even if it contemplated, successive inquiries there was no provision for setting aside earlier inquiries without giving any reason whatsoever. It was further contended that the order dated February 13, 1962 was mala fide.
Rule 15(1) of the Classification and Control Rules reads as follows:
"(1) Without prejudice to the, provisions of; the Public Servants (Inquiry) Act, 1850, no order imposing on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in clauses (iv) to (vii) of rule 13 shall be passed except after an inquiry, held, as far as may be,2 in. manner hereinafter provided."
Clause (2) of. rule 15 provides for framing of charges and communication in writing to the government servant of these charges With the statement of .allegations on which they are based, and it also provides for a written statement of defence. Under cl. (3) the government servant is entitled to inspect and take extracts from such official records as he may specify, subject to certain exceptions. Under clause (4) on receipt of the written statement of defence the Disciplinary Authority may itself enquire into such. of thecharges as are not admitted, or if it considers it necessary so to do, appoint a Board of Inquiry or an Inquiring Officer for the purpose. Clause (7) provides that at the conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiring Authority shall prepare a report of the inquiry, recording its findings on each of the charges together with reasons therefore. If in the opinion of such authority the proceedings of the inquiry establish charges different from those originally framed it may record findings on such charges provided that findings on such charges shall not be recorded unless the Government servant has admitted the facts constituting them or has bad an opportunity of defending himself against them. Under cl. (9) "the Disciplinary Authority shall, if it is not the Inquiring Authority, consider the record of the inquiry and record its findings on each charge." Clause (10) provides for issue of show-cause notice. It seems to us that Rule 15, on the face of it, really provides for one inquiry but it may be possible if in a particular case there has been no proper enquiry because some serious defect has crept into the inquiry or some important witnesses were not available at the time of the inquiry or were not examined for some other reason, the Disciplinary Authority may ask the Inquiry Officer to record further evidence. But 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. In our view the rules do not contemplate an action such as was taken by the Collector on February 13, 1962. It seems to us that the Collector, instead of taking responsibility himself, was determined to get" some officer to report against the appellant. The procedure adopted was not only not warranted by the rules but was harassing to the appellant Before the Judicial commissioner the point was put slightly differently and, it was urged that the proceedings showed that the Disciplinary Authority had made up its mind to dismiss the appellant. The Judicial Commissioner held that on the facts it could not be said that the Disciplinary Authority was prejudiced against the appellant. But it seems to us that on the material on record a suspicion does arise, that the Collector was determined to get some Inquiry Officer to report against the appellant. In the result we hold that no proper inquiry has been con- ducted in the case and, therefore, there has been a breach of art. 311(2) of the Constitution. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the order dated June 4, 1962 quashed, and it is declared that the appellant should be treated as still continuing in service. He should be paid his pay and allowances for the period he has been out of office.
Post a Comment