TIT BITS ON DISCIPLINE -264
Disciplinary authority to satisfy that the inquiry has been held properly and to remit the case for fresh or further inquiry, if necessary
Disciplinary authority to satisfy that the inquiry has been held properly and to remit the case for fresh or further inquiry, if necessary
1030. First of all, the disciplinary authority has to satisfy itself that the report of inquiry officer is complete in all respects and does not suffer from any infirmity, irregularity or insufficiency of evidence. If he is of the opinion that the inquiry has not been held in accordance with rules, he may remit the case to the inquiry officer for further or fresh inquiry as he may direct or he may himself take further evidence or examine any witness, from the stage the irregularity crept in but charged officer must be given a reasonable opportunity to rebut the evidence thus being collected. He must also record his reasons for ordering fresh or further inquiry. However, if the inquiry already held is regular and complete, the disciplinary authority has no jurisdiction to order a re-inquiry. The limitation on the disciplinary authority to refer a case for re-inquiry only where the earlier inquiry has not been proper or regular, flows not only from the statutory rules [see Rule 15(1) of the C.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1965) but also from the Case-law [K. R. Deb v. Collector of Central Excise, AIR 1971 SC 1447].
1031. For instance, in a case where two witnesses while expressing their inability to be present had sent their statements in writing to the inquiry officer who had taken them into consideration. But, on receipt of report of inquiry, the disciplinary authority took the view that the procedure adopted was not correct and legal, the remanding back of inquiry by the disciplinary authority was upheld by the Supreme Court [Union of India v. P. Thayagarajan, AIR 1999 SC 449].
Normally, further inquiry should be held from stage where irregularity crept in
1032. Where, on pointing out of irregularities in the holding of inquiry, the disciplinary authority had ordered a fresh inquiry, the Supreme Court held that since the flaw relates to recording of defence evidence, it was not necessary to hold inquiry from very beginning. The new inquiry officer should proceed to give opportunity to the petitioner to produce his documentary and oral evidence and also consider the question of recalling any witness for further cross-examination by the petitioner and then proceed to decide the matter afresh [State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Ajay Kumar Gulati, 1996 AIR SCW 3005].
Post a Comment