Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.
Force No. 941400224 CT/GD Johnny Dkhar, S/o. Late N.N. Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 1494 of 2016
Decided On : 02-02-2024
Suppression of Material Facts - Central Industrial Security Force Act - Section 8 - The court held that the respondent authorities had the discretion to either take fresh enquiry or reinstate the petitioner. The decision to initiate de novo enquiry by reinstating the petitioner was valid and warranted no interference from the court. The impugned order informing the petitioner of the de novo enquiry and the enquiry notice were set aside and quashed to the extent of holding de novo enquiry on the basis of the earlier charge-sheet. The respondent authorities were at liberty to start the de novo proceedings by issuing a fresh charge-sheet.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a member of the CISF, was reinstated in service after the High Court set aside a removal order and granted leave to the respondent authorities to take fresh enquiry or reinstate the petitioner. The respondent authorities initiated de novo enquiry based on the earlier charge-sheet, leading to the present writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The decision of the respondent authorities to initiate de novo enquiry by reinstating the petitioner was valid and warranted no interference from the court. However, the impugned order informing the petitioner of the de novo enquiry and the enquiry notice were set aside and quashed to the extent of holding de novo enquiry on the basis of the charge-sheet issued earlier. The respondent authorities were at liberty to start the de novo proceedings by issuing a fresh charge-sheet.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent authorities could have initiated the de novo enquiry against the petitioner after reinstating him in service? 2. Whether the decision to initiate de novo enquiry based on the first charge-sheet after the removal order was set aside on the ground that the departmental enquiry held was highly improper and illegal, is valid? 3. Whether there is any suppression of material facts warranting dismissal of the writ petition?
Ratio Decidendi: The respondent authorities had the discretion to either take fresh enquiry or reinstate the petitioner. The decision to initiate de novo enquiry by reinstating the petitioner was valid and warranted no interference from the court. The impugned order informing the petitioner of the de novo enquiry and the enquiry notice were set aside and quashed to the extent of holding de novo enquiry on the basis of the earlier charge-sheet. The respondent authorities were at liberty to start the de novo proceedings by issuing a fresh charge-sheet.
Final Decision: The writ petition stands allowed partly. The impugned order informing the petitioner of the de novo enquiry and the enquiry notice were set aside and quashed to the extent of holding de novo enquiry on the basis of the earlier charge-sheet. The respondent authorities were at liberty to start the de novo proceedings by issuing a fresh charge-sheet.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned CGC for the respondents.
2. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing inter-alia, the actions of the respondent authority to initiate de-novo departmental proceedings against the petitioner which has been conveyed by letter dated 04.11.2015 (Annexure-F), order dated 26.12.2015 (Annexure-G), by which the respondent authority appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct the said enquiry into the charges developed against the petitioner and the Enquiry Notice dated 07.02.2016 (Annexure-A).
3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner joined the CISF as Constable/GD on 15.01.1994 and accordingly, was discharging his duties.
4. On 06.07.2011, while the petitioner was returning from Calcutta, after attending his official training, to his present unit at Jorhat, the petitioner was robbed in the station. The petitioner was also administered some medicines. On somehow reaching his parent unit at Jorhat, the petitioner was taken to Jorhat Civil Hospital wherefrom he was referred to Psychiatrist for further examination. The petitioner was then taken to the Hospital of Assam Rifle, where the doctor recorded that the petitioner was under the influence of liquor.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide an order dated 08.07.2011 and was also informed that a disciplinary proceeding is going to be initiated against him.
6. Subsequently, on 02.08.2011, a copy of the memorandum of charges was issued against the petitioner wherein the respondent authority alleged that the petitioner was using indecent and filthy language towards his senior official under influence of liquor.
7. Accordingly, departmental enquiry was held, wherein the petitioner was found guilty of the charges framed and thereafter, by order dated 22.12.2011 the petitioner was awarded the penalty of ‘removal from service’.
8. Being aggrieved by the said removal order dated 22.11.2011, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General, CISF, Airport (E & NE), HQrs., Kolkata. However, the appellate authority rejected the said appeal vide order dated 24.04.2012.
9. The petitioner thereafter, filed a writ petition being WP(C) No.30/2013 before the Meghalaya High Court against the said removal order dated 22.11.2011 and the appellate authority’s order dated 24.04.2012.
10. The Meghalaya High Court vide judgment and order dated 20.07.2015, in the aforesaid writ proceedings, was pleased to set aside the aforesaid removal order dated 22.11.2011 and the aforesaid appellate authority’s order dated 24.04.2012. The Meghalaya High Court was further pleased to grant leave to the respondent authorities to take fresh enquiry if they so desire or to reinstate the petitioner.
11. Paragraph 14 of the said judgment and order dated 20.07.2015 is extracted hereunder for ready reference-
12. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed by an office memorandum dated 04.11.2015 that the petitioner was reinstated in service in the same status, he was, as on the date of passing the final order of penalty and that a de-novo enquiry is going to be conducted against him in terms of the said judgment and order dated 20.07.2015.
13. Paragraph 3 of the said office memorandum dated 04.11.2015 is extracted hereunder for ready reference-
AI
The court ruled that a de-novo enquiry cannot be initiated based on a previously quashed charge-sheet, necessitating a fresh charge-sheet for any new proceedings.
A de novo inquiry is permissible under Rule 26(1) of the CDA Rules when substantial evidence or procedural defects existed in the prior inquiry, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice....
The disciplinary authority can remit the case for further enquiry, but a de-novo enquiry is not warranted unless there is a patent irregularity or illegality in the earlier enquiry report.
De novo inquiries lacking essential witness examinations violate natural justice principles, rendering dismissal decisions unlawful.
Proportionality of punishment and adherence to prescribed procedures in disciplinary proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a fresh enquiry can be ordered under Rule 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991.
The disciplinary authority cannot order a fresh enquiry without identifying material irregularities in the previous proceedings, emphasizing adherence to the procedural rules and safeguarding the rig....
The disciplinary authority's power to order a de novo inquiry and frame additional charges must be in accordance with Rule 15(1) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
