The government is not bound by the findings of a Commission of Enquiry and has the power to initiate action based on relevant materials, even if gathered on the basis of a report made outside the scope of the reference.

1. The petitioner who is a member of the Indian Administrative Service has filed this original petition inter alia to issue a writ of mandamus calling for the files relating to the issue of notification dated 17-8-1987 of the second respondent and to examine the scope and ambit of Clause.9 thereof and quash the proceedings of the Commission of Enquiry constituted by the respondents in respect of matters pertaining to the settlement of final bills, and to restrain the respondents from pursuing further action on the basis of the report of the Commission of Enquiry, in respect of this matter. The petitioner points out that be joined the Civil Supplies Corporation long after the settlement of contract for the purchase of Punjab rice with Scurvier Enterprises in respect of which the enquiry was ordered. The payment of the final bill in respect of the supply from Andhra Pradesh traders was taken up only in April, 1985, while the terms of reference to the Commission of enquiry pertained to dealings/ transactions between October, 1983 and March, 1984. The settlement of the bills was made long after this period. The scope of the enquiry ordered as per Ext. P1 does not take in the matter of final settlement of the bills for rice purchased by the Corporation during the period 26-10-1983 to 18-2-1984 from other States through M/s. Mehr Rice Trading Company and its associates. Nevertheless the commission has submitted report alleging irregularities on the part of the petitioner in the settlement of the final bills. According to the petitioner the Commission has travelled beyond the scope of the reference and reported on this matter which did not fall within the scope of the terms of reference. Based on this report, which was beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission, the respondents are contemplating to take action against the petitioner. A report in that regard appeared in the Kerala Kaumudi Daily on 28-9-1988, a copy of which is Ext. P5. It is in this context that the petitioner has filed this Original Petition for the reliefs mentioned earlier.

2. The Commission of Enquiry in this case was constituted under S.3 of the Commission of Enquiry Act, 1952. The commission so constituted is not a court except for a limited purpose. The procedure of the commission is inquisitorial rather than accusatorial (Kehar Singh v. State 1988 (3) SCC. Page 609 para 237). In an enquiry under the above Act there is no accuser, no accused and no specific charges for trial. Nor is the Government required to pronounce one way or other on the findings of the commission. The commission is appointed by the Government for getting information for its own mind so that it may not act in its sovereign character otherwise than in accordance with law and the dictates of justice and enquiry. (In re Maharaja Madhav Singh ILR. 32 Calcutta page (1) Privy Council). The commission is thus only a fact finding body meant only to instruct the mind of the Government without producing any document of a judicial nature (Rajwade v. S. M. Hassan AIR. 1954 Nagpur page 71).

3. The matter was further elucidated in Harekrishna Mehtab v. Chief Minister of Orissa AIR. 1971 Orissa 175. The Orissa High Court said that such an enquiry was necessary for the purpose of maintaining a high standard of public administration and indeed of public life. A commission of enquiry of this kind is not exercising any judicial function and be is not a judge and does not behave like one. He is not there to hear and decide. He is only there to hear and report. Government must no doubt consider it, but they are in no way bound by it Nor are they confined to it.

4. The law relating to commission of enquiry as so understood shows that the function of the commission is only to enquire and report. He does not decide. Government is also not bound by what the Commission says. They are not also confined to the report. It is for the Government to consider and take such action as they deem fit. The question of