Back
2023 Supreme(SC) 1809
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJIV KHANNA, BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.
Union of India and Others – Appellants
Versus
Jagdish Chandra Sethy – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6061 of 2011
Decided On : 18-07-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Vikramjeet Banerjee, Vaishali Verma, G.S. Makkar, Shweta Garg, B.K. Satija, Tathagat Sharma, N.C. Zehang, Sweksha, Arvind Kumar Sharma
For the Respondent: Nidhi
Headnote:(A) Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Rule 14(2) - Authority to appoint inquiry officer - The Court held that as per Rule 14(2), a retired employee can serve as an inquiry officer, distinguishing previous rulings which mandated the officer to be an active public servant. (Paras 3, 5)
(B) Legal authority - The Court reaffirmed that the words 'other authority' and 'person/persons' in legislation do not necessitate that the appointee must still be a public servant contrary to previous interpretations under different rules. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
The appellant contested the appointment of a retired employee as an inquiry officer, citing earlier judgments prohibiting such appointments under specific service rules, which did not apply in this case.
Findings of Court:
The appeal was allowed; the High Court's judgment was set aside, affirming the authority of the disciplinary body to appoint retired officials for inquiries.
Issues: The legal question was whether a retired government employee could be appointed as an inquiry officer under CCS (CCA) Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court concluded that Rule 14(2) permits the appointment of a retired employee as an inquiry officer for expedite inquiries, irrespective of prior judgments referring to term definitions in differing contexts.
Result: Appeal allowed; prior judgments set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. supreme court's reversing decision on disciplinary authority's inquiry appointment. (Para 1 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. retired officers can be inquiry authorities under specific rules. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. clarification on legal interpretation of 'authority'. (Para 5) |
| 4. rejection of argument for lack of reasons in inquiry appointment. (Para 6) |
ORDER :
1. In our opinion, the impugned judgment/order of the High Court dated 07.01.2010, upholding the decision/findings of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack dated 08.02.2008 passed in O.A. No. 828 of 2005, is erroneous and unsustainable.
2. The impugned judgment relies upon the decision of this Court in Ravi Malik vs. National Film Development Corporation Limited and Others , 2004 (13) SCC 427 to hold that a retired public servant could not have been appointed as an inquiry officer. However, the aforesaid decision is founded on the language of Rule 23(b) of the Services Rules and Regulations, 1982 of the National Film Development Corporation Limited, which specifically stipulates that the disciplinary authority may inquire or appoint any public servant to inquire into the truth of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against an employee. Therefore, a retired employee cannot be appointed as an inquiry authority.
3. However, in the present case, the position of the rule is different, as Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 [For Short “CCS (CCA) Rules”] is applicable. The Rule 14(2) states that the disciplinary authority may itself inquire into or under this rule or under provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, appoint an authority to inquire into the truth of the imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against a government servant. Therefore, the disciplinary authority is empowered to appoint a retired employee as an inquiry authority. It is not necessary that the inquiry officer should be a public servant. Hence, no fault can be found as the inquiry officer was not a public servant, but a retired officer.
4. Our attention is also drawn to the Letter/Circular No. 13/02/87-VIG/III dated 19.12.1988 of the Department of Posts, the Government of India, which permits the disciplinary authority to appoint a retired government servant as an inquiry officer in order to clear the backlog of pending inquiries in disciplinary cases and to ensure that the inquiry is completed expeditiously.
5. The legal position is not res integra, as Union of India and Others vs. P.C. Ramakrishnayya , 2010 (8) SCC 644, referring to the earlier decision in Union of India vs. Alok Kumar , 2010 (5) SCC 349, has interpreted Rule 14(2) and thereupon held:
“16. In Alok Kumar (Supra footnote No. 4) this Court considered in great detail, the meaning of the word “authority” occurring in Rule 9(3) and came to find and hold that a retired officer could also be vested with the delegated authority of the disciplinary authority (See Paras 26-62) to hold the inquiry. It may also be noted that in Alok Kumar, this Court also considered the decision in Ravi Malik vs. National Film Development Corp. Ltd. (Supra footnote No. 1.) and distinguished it by pointing out that it was in the context of Rule 23(b) of the Service Rules and Regulations, 1982 of National Film Development Corporation. In SCC Para 45 of the judgment, the Court observed as follows: [Alok Kumar Case, SCC p. 367):
“45. Reliance placed by the respondents upon the judgment of this Court in Ravi Malik (Supra footnote No. 1) is hardly of any assistance to them. Firstly, the facts and the rules falling for consideration before this Court in that case were entirely different. Secondly, the Court was concerned with the expression ‘public servant’ appearing in Rule 23(b) of the SERVICE RULES and Regulations, 1982 of the Film Development Corporation. The Court expressed the view that ‘public servant’ should be understood in its common parlance and a retired officer would not fall wi
