Important points
1. Rule 27(c) of the CRPF Rules enables the Disciplinary Authority to record his findings on the enquiry report and to pass an appropriate order including a de novo enquiry if the case so warrants.
2. Disciplinary Authority at whose instance departmental enquiry is begun, if he is not satisfied with enquiry held for some vital defects in the procedure adopted could order a fresh enquiry.

Headnote:Service Law-Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955-Rule 27 -Departmental enquiry-Powers of disciplinary authority-Enquiry officer treating letters of witnesses as evidence - Disciplinary Authority stating that irregularities committed in conducting enquiry directing de novo enquiry-High Court holding that appellate authority could direct a fresh or de novo enquiry and a such power not available to Disciplinary Authority-Whether correct-No-Rule 27(c) enables Disciplinary Authority to record his findings on enquiry report and to pass appropriate order including ordering a de novo enquiry.
       Held : In order to satisfy ourselves of the correctness of the contentions raised on behalf of the parties, we called for the original record of the enquiry and of the Disciplinary Authority and on going through the same, we find that letters addressed to the Enquiry Officer have been treated as statements made before him of U.N. Chaini (PW 2) and letter sent by K.M. Verghese, who was to be examined as a defence witness. (Para 6)
       What is contemplated in Rule 27(c)(2) is that evidence material to the charge could be either oral or documentary and, if oral, (i) it shall be direct; (ii) it shall be recorded by the office conducting the enquiry himself or by any officer; and (iii) the accused shall be allowed to cross examine the witness. When reliance is sought to be placed on oral evidence of witnesses it will have to be obtained in the manner indicated in the said Rule and that the oral statement has to be recorded by the officer himself conducting the enquiry in the presence of the parties and it cannot be done in any other manner. The procedure in taking letters as statements is in violation of Rule 27(c)(2). Therefore the contention put forth on behalf of the appellant and the reasons set forth in the course of the order setting aside the enquiry is justified. (Para 7)
       As held in K.R. Dev v. Collector of Central Excise, 1971(2) SCC 102 in a particular. If in a particular case where there has been no proper enquiry because of some serious defect having crept into the inquiry or some important witnesses were not available at the time of the inquiry or were not examined, the Disciplinary Authority may ask the Inquiry Officer to record further evidence but that provision would not enable the Disciplinary Authority to set aside the previous enquiries on the ground that the report of the Enquiry Officer does not appeal to the Disciplinary Authority. In the present case the basis upon which the Disciplinary Authority set aside the enquiry is that the procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer was contrary to the relevant rules and affects the rights of the parties and not that the report does not appeal to him. When important evidence, either to be relied upon by the department or by the delinquent official, is shut out, this would not result in any advancement of any justice but on the other hand result in a miscarriage thereof. Therefore we are of the view that Rule 27(c) enables the Disciplinary Authority to record his findings on the report and to pass an appropriate order including ordering a de novo enquiry in a case of present nature. (Para 8)
       The reasoning adopted by the Division Bench of the High Court was plainly incorrect. Whatever may be the powers of the appellate authority, the Disciplinary Authority will have to be satisfied with the procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer before passing an order. It does not stand the logic that in a given case the appellate authority could order a fresh enquiry and not the Disciplinary Authority at whose instance the enquiry began and which is not satisfied with the enquiry held for some vital defects in the procedure adopted. Therefore the order made by the High Court cannot be sustained. (Para 9)

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

Rule 27(c) of the CRPF Rules authorizes the Disciplinary Authority to record findings on the enquiry report and to pass appropriate orders, including ordering a de novo enquiry if necessary (!) (!) .
The Disciplinary Authority, who initiates departmental enquiries, has the power to order a fresh enquiry if there are vital procedural defects in the initial enquiry, such as irregularities or violations of the prescribed procedure (!) (!) .
The procedure for recording evidence, especially oral evidence, must strictly adhere to the rules, which require that oral statements be directly recorded by the enquiry officer in the presence of the parties, and reliance on letters as statements without proper procedure constitutes a procedural violation (!) (!) .
The authority to set aside an enquiry and order a de novo enquiry is within the powers of the Disciplinary Authority, provided there are procedural irregularities or defects that compromise the fairness of the enquiry (!) (!) .
The power of the Disciplinary Authority to order a fresh or de novo enquiry is distinct from the powers of appellate authorities, and it is not correct to hold that only appellate authorities can direct such actions (!) (!) .
The decision to set aside an enquiry should be based on procedural irregularities affecting the rights of the parties, rather than on the enquiry report's appeal to the authority, which aligns with the principles of natural justice (!) (!) .
The High Court's reasoning that the Disciplinary Authority cannot order a de novo enquiry was found to be incorrect; the Disciplinary Authority has the inherent power to do so when procedural violations occur (!) (!) .
The case emphasizes the importance of conducting departmental enquiries strictly in accordance with the prescribed rules to ensure fairness and justice, and it underscores that procedural violations can justify setting aside an enquiry and ordering a fresh one (!) (!) .
The matter was directed to be completed expeditiously, within three months, to avoid undue delay, with the Disciplinary Authority expected to take an appropriate decision based on the enquiry (!) (!) .
The appeal was allowed, and the order of the High Court was set aside, reaffirming the authority of the Disciplinary Authority to order a de novo enquiry when procedural irregularities are identified (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you require further analysis or assistance with this case.

Judgment

Rajendra Babu, J.-Leave granted.

2. The respondent, while discharging the duties as Asst. Sub-Inspector in CRPF at Guwahati, was transferred to Jammu by order dated May 31, 1991 and he was relieved on the same day to enable him to proceed to Jammu. The respondent failed to report for duty at Jammu but had remained absent on the ground that he was not well and he had been advised to take rest. He was served with memorandum of charges. The gist of it is as under :

1. That he did not report for duty at the office of the IGP(OPS), CRPF, J & K, Srinagar on his transfer/attachment and did not proceed to his new posting from present office as ASI(M) in GC, CRPF, Guwahati and thereby committed an act of disobedience of the orders of his superiors in the discharge of his duties in his capacity as a member of the force under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949;

2. That he committed an act of neglect of duty in his capacity as a member of the force inasmuch as he remained absent from duty from June 1, 1991 to September 2, 1991 without proper permission from the competent authority and without sufficient cause, reason or ground thereby violated Section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949;

3. That he committed an act of misconduct by sending an application dated June 1, 1991 directly to IGP, NES, CRPF in violation of the provisions contained in Para 3 of Circular Order No. 3/80 read with the decision of the Government of India in this regard.

3. The Enquiry Officer conducted an enquiry on the aforesaid charges and made a report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority noticed certain irregularities in the conduct of the enquiry which were of vital nature, in particular, that the Enquiry Officer acted on the letters of one U.N. Chaini, who was a witness on behalf of the department and K.M. Verghese, who was a witness on behalf of the respondent on the basis of a representation made by them stating that they are not in a position to attend the enquiry proceedings but indicating the facts within their knowledge. The concerned authority was of the view that the witnesses should have been examined in person and the procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer was contrary to the relevant rules in taking their letters as statements. The Enquiry Officer did not ascertain the facts necessary for the conclusion of the case. Therefore, he set aside the findings recorded by him and directed de nono enquiry by an order made on May 19, 1995 which was communicated to the respondent on June 7, 1995. Challenging this order, the respondent preferred a writ petition in the High Court of Guwahati. The learned Single Judge directed issue of rule but did not grant any interim order on the basis that Rule 15 of the Disciplinary Rules enables the authority to remit the matter to the Enquiry Officer for further enquiry and that the power has been exercised by the authority under Rule 15 and mere use of expression “de novo” will not change the tenor of the order. A writ appeal was preferred against the said order and the Division Bench of the High Court granted initially an interim order staying further proceedings in the enquiry and thereafter by an order made on December 15, 1997 allowed the appeal by taking the view that in an appeal arising out of an order of punishment made by the Disciplinary Authority accepting or rejecting the conclusion reached by the enquiry authority, the appellate authority could direct a fresh or de novo enquiry and such power is not available to the Disciplinary Authority. Thus, the Division Bench set aside the order made by the Disciplinary Authority on June 6, 1995. Hence this appeal by special leave.

4. Shri K.N. Rawal, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the appellant, drew our attention to the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 and, in particular to Rule 27 thereof. Detailed procedure is set forth therein. Rule 27(c)(6) enables the Commandant, if he

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(SC) 1169

Cases Referred (1)