The court clarified the obligations of the Disciplinary Authority and the Inquiry Officer under Rule 15 of CCS (CCA) Rules, emphasizing the need for a fair and lawful disciplinary process.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. SISTANI, J.

1. The present petition is directed against order dated 10.01.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) in OA No. 2381/2018. At the relevant time the respondent was working as Executive Engineer in the Ministry of Defence. A charge memo was issued to him on 18.11.2004 on the ground that he had demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000/- from one Umesh Salgaonkar, Partner of M/s S.K. Salgaonkar & Brothers, Vasco, Goa for recommending the extension of the time for completion of work of construction of 24 deficient married accommodation for the Navy at NOFRA, Goa.

2. It may be noted that criminal proceedings were also initiated against the respondent, which resulted in acquittal of the respondent by the Criminal Court.

3. The Inquiry Officer submitted the report on 10.07.2017; which was examined by the Disciplinary Authority and the following observations were made :

“I am directed to refer to the Inquiry Report dated 10.07.2017, forwarded therewith vide letter dated 29.07.2017 in the disciplinary proceedings against Shri Pravin Kumar. EE.

“2. On examination of Inquiry Report it has been observed that –

(i) the IO has arrived at the decision completely on the basis of judgment of Special Court of CBI in Goa at Mapusa, in Special Case No. 12/2013/T dated 10.09.2014, without following, Sub Rule 23 of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (Govt. of India Decision). As per the said rule the IO was expected to summon the witnesses, read out the statement of witnesses already recorded in CBI Court proceedings during oral inquiry and if it is admitted by them, the cross-examination of the witness could have commenced.

(ii) Further, General Examination as per the provisions made in the Sub Rule 18 of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 has not been done.

3. In view of above, Disciplinary Authority has decided to remit the Inquiry to Inquiry Officer for completing the Inquiry as stipulated under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and by obtaining deposition of the Witnesses.

4. Accordingly, the Inquiry Report along with connected documents is returned herewith.

5. This has the approval of Competent Authority.”

4. Aggrieved by the fact that despite a finding of the Inquiry Officer in his favour, the Disciplinary Authority had remanded the matter back, without serving a copy of inquiry report upon the respondent led to the respondent filing the OA before the Tribunal.

5. The OA was allowed primarily on the ground that a copy of the inquiry report had not been supplied to the delinquent officer ; and also that the view of the Disciplinary Authority that witnesses should have been summoned by the Inquiry Officer has not found favour with the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also opined that witnesses were to be summoned by the Presenting Officer or the Department and not by the Inquiry Officer. It appears that the Tribunal also found the Disciplinary Authority’s view that the Inquiry Officer could not have looked into the judgment of the Criminal Court at all to be amiss. The concluding part of the order of the Tribunal reads as under :

“10. The Disciplinary Authority was of the view that the Inquiry Officer; a) cannot look into the judgement of the Criminal Court at all and b) was under obligation to summon witnesses. On both counts, the view taken by the Disciplinary Authority is incorrect. He did not furnish the copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer to the applicant. An employee has every right to rely upon the findings recorded by the Criminal Court and the Inquiry Officer is under obligation to take this into account. Secondly, it is no part of the duty of the Inquiry Officer to summon witnesses. It is the Presenting Officer, or Department in general to name the witnesses and examine them in accordance with law.

11. For the foregoing reasons, we allow the OA setting aside the Order dated 19.04.2018. However, we do not interfere with the charge memo. The Disciplinary Authority is directed to take next step in th