Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
S. K. MUKHERJEE, DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.
Balbir Singh - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India - Respondent
W.P.C.T. No. 081 of 2009
Decided on : Aug 30, 2010
CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES - Re-Inquiry - Scope and Permissibility - Disciplinary Authority's Power to Remit Case for Further Inquiry - Conditions and Limitations - Production of Additional Evidence to Fill Gaps in Prosecution Case - Impermissibility - Interpretation of Rule 15(1) and Rule 14(15) - Judicial Review of Departmental Proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Executive Engineer in the Andaman Public Works Department, faced departmental proceedings for alleged disproportionate assets and conspiracy/cheating charges. After a lengthy investigation, the CBI submitted a final report stating no wrongful loss or gain to the petitioner. The petitioner faced departmental proceedings based on the charge sheet, which listed 41 documents to be relied on by the prosecution. During the inquiry, the presenting officer sought to produce five additional documents, which were allowed by the inquiring authority despite the petitioner's objection. The presenting officer failed to produce these documents for over three years, despite repeated extensions granted by the inquiring authority. The inquiring authority completed the inquiry and submitted a report to the disciplinary authority, who then ordered a re-inquiry to consider the five additional documents. The petitioner challenged this order before the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal), which set aside the re-inquiry order but granted liberty to the disciplinary authority to decide on further inquiry.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the disciplinary authority's order for re-inquiry was not justified, and the Tribunal erred in granting liberty for further inquiry. The Court found that the disciplinary authority failed to provide valid reasons for ordering a re-inquiry, as required under Rule 15(1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (Rules). The Court also noted that the additional documents could not be produced to fill gaps in the prosecution case, as per the note appended to Rule 14(15) of the Rules.
Issues: 1. Whether the disciplinary authority was justified in ordering a re-inquiry based on the failure of the prosecution to produce additional documents during the initial inquiry? 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in granting liberty to the disciplinary authority to conduct further inquiry?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power to remit a case for further inquiry under Rule 15(1) of the Rules is not intended to allow the disciplinary authority to continue an inquiry indefinitely to fill gaps in the prosecution case. 2. The disciplinary authority must provide valid reasons for ordering a re-inquiry, and the reasons must be germane, cogent, and not based on whims, fancy, or caprice. 3. The note appended to Rule 14(15) of the Rules prohibits the production of new or additional evidence to fill gaps in the evidence during an inquiry. 4. The disciplinary authority failed to provide valid reasons for ordering a re-inquiry and did not consider the note appended to Rule 14(15) of the Rules, which limits the production of additional evidence.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition to the extent of setting aside the part of the Tribunal's order that granted liberty to the disciplinary authority to proceed afresh from the stage the irregularity was caused. The Court directed the disciplinary authority to conclude the departmental proceeding within three months from the date of receipt of the order, without ordering further inquiry for recording additional evidence.
Dipankar Datta, J.
1. THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (hereafter writ petition) challenging the judgment and order dated February 10, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereafter the Tribunal) in O.A. No. 118/AN/2009.
2. THE petitioner was an Executive Engineer in the Store Division of the Andaman Public Works Department (hereafter APWD).
In the months of July, 2002 and October, 2002, two cases were initiated against the petitioner. In substance, it was alleged that the petitioner, while serving as an Executive Engineer, amassed assets disproportionate to his known source of income. The Central Bureau of Investigation (hereafter the CBI) was entrusted to investigate into the charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. ON completion of investigation, the Superintendent of Police, Anti-corruption Branch, CBI, Kolkata, forwarded a final report. It was stated by the investigating agency that the purchase orders issued by the petitioner to a private firm for supply of materials to APWD were issued at the approved rate of Government of India. Therefore, no wrongful loss was caused to the government and the petitioner acquired no wrongful gain. The investigating agency, also, reported that no evidence of conspiracy or cheating could be established in course of investigation.
4. THE matter was posted before the learned Special Judge for the acceptance of the final report submitted by the CBI. THE learned Special Judge, by order dated June 28, 2006, accepted the final report submitted by the investigating agency under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
On the allegation that there were violations of the departmental procedures in issuing the purchase orders, a departmental proceeding was, also, initiated by issuance of memorandum of charge sheet dated July 7, 2004 containing 4 (four) articles of charge framed against the petitioner. In Annexure-III accompanying the memorandum of charge sheet, being the list of documents, about 41 (forty-one) documents were referred to which would be relied on to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner.
5. IN course of the departmental enquiry, the presenting officer wanted to rely on 5 (five) more documents, which are as under:
1. Requirement letter of all EE's (1999-2000) 2. Consolidate statement of requirements of materials (1999-2000) 3. Enclosure of minutes of PCA meeting of (1999-2000) 4. Amendment order dated August 4, 2000 (increasing quantity) 5. Changing description letter dated July 28, 2000.
6. THE petitioner strongly objected to the production of those additional documents by the presenting officer. It was stated that those documents were sought to be relied upon against the petitioner to cure the lacuna in the evidence. Still, the inquiring authority by order dated June 29, 2005 permitted the presenting officer to produce and rely upon those five documents.
Several opportunities were granted to the presenting officer to produce those documents. Eventually, on September 17, 2008, the presenting officer expressed his inability before the inquiring authority to produce those documents.
7. SINCE the inquiry in connection eith the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner had been pending for substantially long period of time without possibility of its completion in the near future, he had earlier approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. 169/AN/2007. The said application was disposed of by an order dated December 10, 2008 with a direction on the disciplinary authority to complete the departmental proceeding within three months from date and to pass appropriate order and communicate to the petitioner within fifteen days thereof.
8. THE inquiring authority completed the enquiry and submitted his report. THE same, however, was not furnished to the petitioner. It has also not been brought on record by the respondents.
The disciplinary authority, however, thought that the matter required re-enqui
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
