Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
VIBHA KANKANWADI, HITEN S.VENEGAVKAR
Ajay, S/o Jagan Vyawhare – Appellant
Versus
Secretary, Urban Development Department – Respondent
Key Points: - The court held that after an inquiry under Rule 8 concludes and the report is submitted, the disciplinary authority must act under Rule 9 and cannot bypass it to order a de novo inquiry on the same charges. (!) - Rule 9 requires: (i) remittance for further inquiry under Rule 9(1) with written reasons, or (ii) forwarding the report with tentative disagreement reasons under Rule 9(2) and inviting the delinquent’s representation before penalty under Rule 9(2)–(4). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The authority must furnish the inquiry report and reasons for disagreement to the delinquent, allow representation, and then proceed to penalty, within the framework of Rule 9; starting a fresh de novo inquiry on the same charges is not authorized. (!) (!) (!) (!) - Prior judgments cited (e.g., K. R. Deb) support that fresh inquiries on the same charge without defect in the prior inquiry are not permissible. (!) - The petition was partly allowed; the impugned order directing a de novo inquiry was quashed, and the authority was directed to furnish the earlier inquiry report and proceed under Rule 9 with due procedural steps. (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ challenges de novo inquiry after first report. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. dispute over rule 9 permitting de novo inquiry. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. rule 9 mandates steps post-report; no de novo. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. precedents prohibit successive inquiries on same charges. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. de novo order bypasses rule 9 invalidly. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 6. authority can remit or disagree per rule 9. (Para 15) |
| 7. quash order; comply with rule 9 henceforth. (Para 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned AGP for the respondents. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.
3. The present petition is instituted for quashing and setting aside the order dated 24.12.2025 issued by respondent No.2, the Commissioner and Director of Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats, whereby a de novo departmental inquiry has been directed against the petitioner and a new Inquiry Officer has been appointed. The petitioner asserts that he possesses the degree of Bachelor of Engineering in Mechanical Engine
Disciplinary authority cannot order de novo inquiry on same charges after first inquiry report without following Rule 9 procedure of remitting for further inquiry or providing report with disagreemen....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that when a certain act is required to be done in a certain way, it should be done in that way only and not in any other manner. The failure to com....
A de novo inquiry is permissible under Rule 26(1) of the CDA Rules when substantial evidence or procedural defects existed in the prior inquiry, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice....
The disciplinary authority can remit the case for further enquiry, but a de-novo enquiry is not warranted unless there is a patent irregularity or illegality in the earlier enquiry report.
Disciplinary Authority cannot order de-novo inquiry under CCS (CCA) Rules upon dissatisfaction with Inquiry Officer's report; must proceed per Rule 15 by providing disagreement reasons or directing f....
The disciplinary authority must provide cogent reasons for ordering a de novo inquiry; failure in this regard vitiates subsequent penalties, while waiver through participation in inquiry bars later c....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
