In joint enquiries involving individuals with different disciplinary authorities, disciplinary action should be taken by the higher authority with the consent of the other.

ORDER :

Sujata V. Manohar, J.

The appellant at the material time was working as a Senior Auditor in the Office of the Comptroller & Auditor General of India. On 18-7-1985, he received a charge-sheet pertaining to a claim made by the appellant for LTC amounting to Rs. 3400 on false bills. In respect of another employee, Muni Lal who was also alleged to have travelled in the same bus as the appellant, similar proceedings were taken.

2. Pursuant to an order which was passed by this Court on 26-11-1984 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 14110 of 1984, a joint enquiry was held in respect of charges against the appellant and Muni Lal. The enquiry officer submitted his report dated 31-3-1986 exonerating the appellant. The report was placed before the Deputy Accountant General, Administration, Audit I who was the disciplinary authority in the case of the appellant. The same report was placed before the Accountant General (A&E-I) who was the disciplinary authority in the case of Muni Lal. It seems that the disciplinary authority in the case of the appellant, without the consent of the disciplinary authority of Muni Lal, passed an order on 19-5-1986 accepting the report of the enquiry officer. This order was, however, not communicated to the appellant because the higher disciplinary authority in the case of Muni Lal directed a further enquiry into the charges with the concurrence of the other disciplinary authority. As a result, the matter was remanded to the enquiry officer who held a further enquiry against both, the appellant as well as Muni Lal, and submitted a report on 29-12-1986 exonerating the appellant of the charges. The disciplinary authority in the case of the appellant, disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and passed an order dated 16-9-1987 holding the appellant guilty of the charges. He imposed the penalty of reduction of pay by two stages for a period of one year without cumulative effect. The appellant filed an appeal before the appellate authority which was rejected on 29-7-1988. A further revision was also rejected on 3-6-1991.

3. The appellant, therefore, moved the Central Administrative Tribunal which dismissed the application of the appellant.

4. The appellant has relied upon Rule 18 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 which is as follows:

"18. (1) Where two or more Government servants are concerned in any case, the President or any other authority competent to impose the penalty of dismissal from service on all such Government servants may make an order directing that disciplinary action against all of them may be taken in a common proceeding.

Note.-If the authorities competent to impose the penalty of dismissal on such Government servants are different, an order for taking disciplinary action in a common proceeding may be made by the highest of such authorities with the consent of the others.

(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (4) of Rule 12, any such order shall specify-

(i) the authority which may function as the disciplinary authority for the purpose of such common proceeding;

(ii) the penalties specified in Rule 11 which such disciplinary authority shall be competent to impose;

(iii) whether the procedure laid down in Rule 14 and Rule 15 or Rule 16 shall be followed in the proceeding."

5. The joint enquiry in the present case was held in pursuance of the order of this Court. The note, however, to Rule 18 makes it very clear that in the case of a joint enquiry in the case of two persons, if the disciplinary authority for each is different, the disciplinary action should be by the higher authority with the consent of the other. The first order dated 19-5-1986 on which the appellant relies, was not passed by the appellant's disciplinary authority with the consent of the disciplinary authority in the case of Muni Lal. Between the two disciplinary authorities, Munilal's was higher. The higher disciplinary authority directed a further enquiry pursuant to which the impugned order came to be passed. The Tribunal has righ