The appointment of Inquiry Officers is permissible under CCS (CCA) Rules, and requests for change due to bias can be resolved by Disciplinary Authority.

Headnote:(A) CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Office Memorandum (OM) dated 15.09.2017, 25.01.2022, and 15.03.2022 - Appointment of Inquiry Officer - The petitioner alleged bias in the appointment of Inquiry Officer and procedural violations - The court held that the appointment of a retired officer is permissible and that the Disciplinary Authority acted within its rights. (Paras 11, 21, 24)

(B) Procedure - Review and consideration of requests for change of Inquiry Officer - The court ruled that such requests can be addressed by Disciplinary Authority, not necessarily requiring Appellate Authority's intervention. (Paras 13, 22)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the validity of the departmental inquiry process against him, alleging arbitrary decisions leading to charges regarding conduct during work duties. He argued against the appointment of Inquiry Officer and procedural errors in handling his requests for representation and defense assistance.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the Inquiry Officer's appointment was valid and procedural rules were adhered to, rejecting claims of bias and procedural lapses raised by the petitioner.

Issues: The main issues included whether the appointment of a retired officer as Inquiry Officer was valid and whether the Disciplinary Authority’s rejection of the petitioner’s request for a change of Inquiry Officer was proper.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that the Disciplinary Authority has the right to appoint a competent Inquiry Officer, and the existence of panels does not restrict its authority; procedural fairness was found in handling representations from the petitioner. (Paras 20, 24)

Result: Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

Table of Content
1. overview of the petitioner’s employment and inquiry context (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 10)
2. arguments concerning the appointment of the inquiry officer (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
3. court's reasoning on the validity of inquiry officer’s appointment (Para 17 , 20 , 21 , 23)
4. clarification of procedural rules regarding inquiry officers (Para 18 , 19 , 22)
5. final decision to dismiss the writ petition (Para 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J. (Oral)--The petitioner, who is working with the respondent no.1 as an Assistant Engineer (Civil) and is facing a departmental inquiry pursuant to the chargesheet dated 16.03.2022 issued by the respondent no.1, has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

"a. Set aside/quash the charge-sheet dated 16.03.2022 as issued by the Respondent to the Petitioner;

b. Set aside/quash the office order dated 24/30.03.2021 constituting the fact-finding committee, for being an arbitrary exercise of power;

c. Set aside/quash order dated 22/29.07.2022 appointing Mr. Hari Pal Singh as the IO to inquire into the charges as mentioned in charge-sheet dated 16.03.2022;

d. Set aside/quash Order dated 12.08.2022 passed by the Respondent rejecting the request of the Petitioner for the change of the 10."

2. The petitioner, on 16.02.2015, joined the respondent no.1 as an Assistant Engineer (Civil) on deputation, and was subsequently absorbed on the said post on 01.01.2020. He was, thereafter, on 10.03.2015, given the additional charge of the post of officiating Executive Engineer (Civil).

3. On 06.08.2019, while working as an officiating Executive Engineer (Civil), the petitioner was served with a Show Cause Notice by the respondent no.1, levelling allegations against him for indulging in demolition of RCC water over-head tanks during 2018-19 in contravention of the estimated items/schedule of quality. An explanation was, therefore, sought from him as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. On 23.08.2019, the petitioner sent a detailed reply refuting all the charges against him, and stated that action had been taken by him strictly as per the laid down procedure.

4. Being not satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondent no.1 on 24/30.03.2021 initially appointed a two-member Preliminary Fact-Finding Committee (PFFC), which gave its report on 09.12.2021, holding the petitioner, and two other officers, liable for lapses during execution of the work entrusted to them. On the basis of this report, the respondent no.1 issued a charge-sheet dated 16.03.2022 to the petitioner, proposing an inquiry in respect of two Articles of Charges.

5. The petitioner on 18.04.2022, filed his statement of defence refuting both the charges, and alleging therein that the charge-sheet had been mala fidely issued at the behest of the erstwhile Director/respondent no.3. As the reply submitted by the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory, the Disciplinary Authority, vide its orders dated 22/29.07.2022, appointed respondent no.4 as Inquiry Authority (IA) and also simultaneously appointed Dr. V.K.S. Gautam as the Presenting Officer (PO) for conducting a departmental inquiry against the petitioner.

6. On 02.08.2022, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent no.1 expressing his apprehension regarding the appointment of Dr. Gautam as the Presenting Officer, on the ground that, while working as a Vigilance Officer (VO), he was instrumental in initiating the PFFC against him. The said representation, however, did not illicit any response from the said respondent, and in the meanwhile, on 03.08.2022, the Inquiry Officer/respondent no.4 issued a notice to the petitioner for holding a preliminary hearing on 08.08.2022. The petitioner was also informed that he could either engage a fellow government official or a retired official as his defence assistant during the inquiry proceedings.

7. The petition