The court upheld the authority's discretion to remit the inquiry to another Inquiry Officer and emphasized the requirement for the new Inquiry Officer to submit the report within six months.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

CM No.12231/2021 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant Rules.

2. The application is disposed of.

LPA 134/2021 & CM No. 12230/2021 (for ad-interim ex-parte stay)

3. This intra court appeal impugns the order dated 15th March, 2021 disposing of W.P.(C) No.3328/2021 preferred by the appellant impugning the revival of inquiry in a disciplinary proceeding against the appellant and impugning the orders dated 1st February, 2021 and 15th February, 2021 of the Inquiry Authority.

4. The Single Judge, in the impugned order has found/observed/reasoned, that (i) the appellant was working as a Junior Driver in the respondent no.1 Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Limited (DTTDC); (ii) departmental proceedings were initiated against the appellant in terms of Memorandum dated 26th May, 2017 and one Mr. Anudeep Bedi, Assistant Manager, appointed as the Inquiry Officer; (iii) the Inquiry Officer concluded the inquiry proceedings and reserved report therein on 11th June, 2019; (iv) the Inquiry Officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority, which on consideration of the same found an infirmity in the conduct of the inquiry since the Inquiry Officer had not considered the view of the witnesses / complainant as well as the deposition of the witnesses who deposed in the inquiry and deemed it appropriate to appoint another Inquiry Officer and passed an order dated 24th November, 2020, in exercise of powers under Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 [CCS(CCA) Rules], remitting the matter to the Inquiry Officer; (v) on 12th February, 2021 the appellant was informed that Sh. Ajit Srivastava, retired IAS officer had been appointed as the Inquiring Authority and the inquiry was next scheduled on 15th February, 2021; and, (vi) on 15th February, 2021, the new Inquiry Officer posted the matter to 17th March, 2021.

5. Observing / recording as aforesaid, the Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition preferred by the appellant, finding no error in the decision of the Disciplinary Authority to remit the inquiry to another Inquiry Officer but directing the new Inquiry Officer to submit the report within six months.

6. The counsel for the appellant, before us has contended that law does not permit substitution of the Inquiry Officer and the impugned judgment of the Single Judge is contrary to the binding dicta of the Division Bench in Union of India Vs. S.K. Verma,2018 SCCOnLine(Del) 7760.

7. However a perusal of the said judgment, particularly paragraphs 14 and 16 to which attention is drawn, does not show the same as laying down any such absolute proposition. In the facts of that case, the Division Bench observed that no reasons had been given for substitution of the Inquiry Officer and in the absence thereof the Inquiry Officer could not be substituted.

8. The counsel for the appellant then contends that no reason exists in the present case also.

9. However perusal of the order dated 24th November, 2020 of the Disciplinary Authority in the present case shows the Disciplinary Authority to have reasoned, that (i) the conduct of the inquiry by the earlier Inquiry Officer was not satisfactory because the Inquiry Officer had not considered the confirmation of witnesses / complainant as well as the depositions of all the witnesses who deposed against the integrity and conduct of the petitioner; and, (ii) the petitioner, as per the said statements / depositions, tarnished the goodwill and image of Delhi Tourism, by misbehaving with an international tourist including lady and thus the inquiry needed to be remitted to a new Inquiry Authority.

10. The Division Bench, in S.K. Verma supra has relied on K.R. Deb Vs. Collector, Central Excise, Shillong, (1971) 2 SCC 102, to hold that the Disciplinary Authority, though can hold a further inquiry but not a de novo inquiry. The counsel for the petitioner then contends that the Discip