IMPORTANT POINT
A retired officer could also be vested with the delegated authority of the Disciplinary Authority to hold the inquiry.

JUDGMENT

Aftab Alam, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal raises the question regarding the validity of a departmental inquiry, under rule 14 (2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 held and conducted by an Inquiry Officer who was not a serving officer but whose name was taken from a panel of retired officers prepared for the purpose of holding departmental inquiries.

3. The respondent was an employee of the Geological Survey of India (hereafter ‘GSI’) and at the material time he was holding a Group ‘B’ post. He was due to superannuate from service on November 30, 2000. On November 24, 2000, he was served with a show cause notice dated November 23, 2000 in connection with various charges and asking him to give his explanation within a week. The respondent gave his reply to the show cause notice but it was not found satisfactory and a charge-sheet was issued against him. One Shri S.M.M.V. Krishna Rao, was appointed as the Inquiry Officer who was selected from a panel of retired officers for appointment as Inquiry Officers approved by the Central Vigilance Commission. The respondent took serious objection to the appointment of Shri Krishna Rao as Inquiry Officer, who was not a serving officer of the GSI but a retired Chief General Manager of IDBI. The respondent did not take part in the departmental inquiry and strongly challenged the competence and authority of Shri Krishna Rao to hold and conduct the departmental inquiry against him. All through the disciplinary proceedings, the respondent stubbornly stuck to his stand and in response to notices issued by the Inquiry Officer in regard to the schedule of the inquiry his response would be that he had no authority to hold the inquiry. As a result of his non-participation an ex parte inquiry was held in which the charges were found established against him. The disciplinary authority then sent him a notice along with a copy of the inquiry report, calling upon him to make his representation, if any, on the inquiry report within 15 days. In response to the notice, the respondent once again reiterated that the inquiry held against him was illegal and invalid. Eventually, by order dated July 7, 2003, he was given the punishment of cut in pension by 10% for 2 years.

4. The respondent challenged the punishment order before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, in OA no.531 of 2004. The challenge to the punishment order was mainly on the ground that the punishment order was passed on the basis of an invalid departmental inquiry inasmuch as the Inquiry Officer had no competence or authority to conduct the inquiry. The Tribunal by its judgment dated December 17, 2007, upheld the respondent’s contention, set aside the punishment order and remanded the matter ordering as follows:

“25. In view of the above, we quash and set aside the order of the disciplinary authority dated 07.07.2003 and direct the authority to consider the objections raised by the applicant as mentioned above including the service of notice and punishment imposed and pass appropriate order thin (sic within) a period of two months from the date of communication of the order. The disciplinary authority, while considering the same shall keep in mind the verdict of the Apex court as pointed out by the applicant.”

5. The appellants took the matter to the High Court in Writ petition no.18584 of 2008 and the High Court by its order dated September 19, 2008 affirmed the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal and dismissed the appellants’ writ petition.

6. The appellants have now brought this matter in appeal before this Court.

7. Before adverting to the merits of the case, we must note a rather curious feature in the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal and the High Court. While upholding the respondent’s contention that a serving officer alone could be appointed as Inquiry Officer for holding a departmental inquiry under rule 14 (2) of the CCS (CCA) R