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 comply with the regulations in conducting the initial enquiry rendered it void, justifying the disciplinary authority's decision to order a de novo inquiry.

JUDGMENT

Apurba Sinha Ray, J.

Factual Matrix:-

1. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant, an employee of the corporation, by the concerned disciplinary authority of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. Initially one Sri Chaitanya De Sarkar was appointed as Inquiry Officer but as he submitted resignation from his engagement, one Sri Biswajit Majumder, Director General (Bustee Cell and S.S.E.P) was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority but the said authority came to the conclusion that the Inquiry Officer had not specifically dealt with each article of charge and did not express his definite findings on each article of charge/imputations. Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 04.09.2003 under Memo No. P/12(21)/VI/115/23 set aside the enquiry report dated 10.02.2023 and appointed a new Inquiry Officer to inquire de novo into the charges framed against the delinquent officer, that is, the petitioner/appellant before this Court.

2. The petitioner/appellant challenged the order dated 04.09.2023 of the Disciplinary Authority by filing a writ petition being no. WPO 1597 of 2023 and the learned Single Judge passed an interim order on 25.09.2023 stating that the Inquiry Officer may conduct the enquiry but no effect to the enquiry report shall be given without taking leave of the Court. As the appellant is dissatisfied with and aggrieved by such interim order, the instant appeal has been preferred.

3. According to the learned counsel of the appellant Mr. Soumya Majumdar the Disciplinary Authority has no jurisdiction/competence under the relevant law, rules and regulations to order fresh de novo inquiry. Learned counsel pointed out that Regulations 9, 10, 11 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Officers’ and Employees’ (Conduct) Regulation, 1991 have laid down the elaborate process for proceeding after completion of the enquiry. The said regulations do not empower the Disciplinary Authority to order fresh enquiry. Moreover, when an act is required to be done in a certain manner then such act must be done in that manner only and not in any other mode or manner. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this court to the decisions Nazir Ahmad Vs. The King Emperor reported at (1935-36) 63 Indian Appeals 372 and also Hukam Chand Shyam Lal Vs. Union of India and Others (1976) 2 SCC 128.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued out that the ground for initiating de novo enquiry was that the Inquiry Officer did not deal with each article of charge by expressing his definite findings on each article of charge. According to learned counsel this is contrary to the role of an Inquiry Officer vis-à-vis the role of a disciplinary authority. The Inquiry Officer is a delegate and material collecting agent of the disciplinary authority. Whereas the disciplinary authority is the real authority to come to its own definite findings in relation to charges. There is no error in the process of hearing in the enquiry or in the process of collecting evidence. In this regard learned counsel has drawn the attention of this court to the case laws reported at (1988) 2 SCC 196 (Union of India & Ors. Vs. E. Bhasyan and (1993) 4 SCC 727 (Managing Director, ECIL Hyderabad & Ors. Vs. B. Karunakar & Ors.). Learned counsel of the appellant vehemently contended that the reason for conducting de novo inquiry clearly indicates a clear intention to obtain result in a definite manner by the Disciplinary Authority. Such a ground is unsustainable. The validity of such order has to be tested on the grounds mentioned therein alone and cannot be supplemented by the respondent. In this regard the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. reported at (1978) 1 SCC 405 has been cited.

5. Learned counsel for the KMC Mr