IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary action against Inquiry Officers requires evidence of misconduct; mere disagreement with findings is insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

(KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J)

Heard Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the impugned order dated 28.06.2023 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, in O.A. No. 272/2022, whereby the charge-sheet dated 18.07.2022 issued against the respondent/applicant was set aside and quashed.

3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:-

The respondent/applicant, while working as officiating Assistant Director (Building, SB, FS and IPPB) was also looking after the charge of Assistant Director (Vigilance and Investigation), Circle Office, Guwahati during the period 05.10.2020 to 28.12.2020. During the said period a squad was constituted by Shri R.K.B. Singh, Chief Postmaster General (CPMG), Assam Circle, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Disciplinary Authority’) of three members including the respondent/applicant for the purpose of conducting inquiries against three complaints received by the Circle Office concerned against one Shri Aparajeet Pattanayak, SSPOs, Darrang Division, Tezpur, for alleged commission of the act of corruption. Accordingly, the said squad conducted the inquiry and thereafter submitted three separate reports to the Disciplinary Authority, i.e. Shri R.K.B. Singh, CPMG on 22.12.2020 and on 24.12.2020 against the three separate complaints lodged against Shri Aparajeet Pattanayak. Pertinent that all the three members of the said squad found the action of Shri Aparajeet Pattanayak against the rules.

It is the specific pleaded case of the respondent/applicant that after the said separate three reports were submitted by the squad members, the said Disciplinary Authority summoned all the three aforesaid members of the said squad including the respondent/applicant to his chamber. Upon the respondent/applicant and the other members appearing before the said Disciplinary Authority, he threatened them to submit the report in a manner favourable to Shri Aparajeet Pattanayak. However, the respondent/applicant and the other two members of the said squad decided unanimously to submit the Inquiry Report as per the materials and statements collected during the inquiry, i.e., against Shri Aparajeet Pattanayak.

4. Thereafter almost 1 ½ years from the submission of the aforesaid Inquiry Report by the respondent/applicant and the other two members, the Disciplinary Authority issued Memorandum of Charge-sheet dated 18.07.2022 against the respondent/applicant alleging inter-alia that the respondent/applicant has not conducted the inquiry as regards the charges of corruption against Shri Aparajeet Pattanayak properly and that the Inquiry Report is not based on the entire record of the matter.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid Charge-sheet, the respondent/applicant filed the application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, wherein the learned Tribunal after hearing the parties set aside the said Charge-sheet. Situated thus, the present writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner/respondent authorities.

5. Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Administrative Tribunal did not consider the submission of the appellant/respondent on merit. He further submits that since the charges are yet to be established and the inquiry has not been commenced, the application is pre-mature and therefore, the order of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal allowing the said application is erroneous and warrants interference from this Writ Court.

6. We have given our prudent consideration to the arguments made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

7. It appears that by order dated 18.07.2022, Shri R.K.B Singh, CPMG, Assam Circle, Guwahati, had issued the Memorandum of Charge to the respondent/applicant for alleged misconduc