Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Amit Bansal, JJ.
Baiju G. - Appellant
Versus
Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Limited - Respondent
LPA 134 of 2021
Decided On : 26-03-2021
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Inquiry authority - Effect of substitution - The court noted that while the authority can engage a new Inquiry Officer, it must ensure adequate reasoning is provided for such substitution. The procedural framework necessitates that the new findings incorporate previous ones while focusing on the integrity of the inquiry process. (Paras 6, 11)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, employed as a Junior Driver, faced disciplinary proceedings initiated in 2017. The Inquiry Officer's previous assessments were deemed flawed, leading to the appointment of a new officer to address the conducted inquiry's inadequacies.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the actions of the Disciplinary Authority were justified, allowing for an inquiry to continue rather than restart under the proper regulatory framework.
Issues: The primary issues addressed included whether the Inquiry Officer's substitution was permissible and if adequate reasons were provided for such a change.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that a disciplinary proceeding could be remitted to a new Inquiry Officer when justified reasons exist, emphasizing the necessity for the continuity of proceedings rather than a complete restart.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. circumstances of disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. single judge's findings on the remittance of inquiry. (Para 5) |
| 3. arguments against the substitution of the inquiry officer. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. court's reasoning against the absolute prohibition of substituting inquiry officer. (Para 7 , 9) |
| 5. clarification on further inquiry versus fresh inquiry. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. dismissing the appeal due to lack of merit. (Para 12) |
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 SCC OnLine 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 s
