The Disciplinary Authority cannot order denovo inquiry under Rule 14 and 15 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, unless there has been no proper inquiry due to serious defects or unavailability of important witnesses.

JUDGMENT :

By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged Office Orders dated 05.01.2012 and 02.03.2012, appended with this petition as Annexures P-10 and P-11, respectively, in terms whereof the Disciplinary Authority has ordered ‘denovo inquiry’ against the petitioner on the charges which were framed against the petitioner.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that vide Office Order dated 30.09.2010 (Annexure P1), the petitioner, who at the relevant time was serving as Manager, Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education, Sale Book Depot, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P., was placed under suspension for gross irregularities during the spot evaluation of the annual examination conducted in March, 2010, at Spot Evaluation Centre, GGSSS Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P., in lieu of the Departmental Proceedings being contemplated against him. Thereafter, vide Memorandum dated 13.12.2010 (Annexure P2), the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why disciplinary proceedings be not initiated against him on the Article of Charges appended therewith. As the Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with the response which was filed by the petitioner thereto, accordingly, Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated and an Inquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the matter. After the completion of the inquiry, Inquiry Officer submitted Inquiry Report, to the Disciplinary Authority. After receipt of the Inquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority passed order dated 05.01.2012 (Annexure P10), which reads as under:

“WHEREAS an inquiry (denovo inquiry) was under Rule14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 is being held against Sh. Krishnu Ram, Distt. Manager (Under Suspension).

AND WHEREAS Sh. Sohan Singh, Assistant Secretary was appointed as Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges framed against the above said Officer vide order No.HB (1) Estt. GF93 (259/146)/201082068210 dated 11.5.2011. The Inquiry Officer had submitted his inquiry report on dated 20.9.2011. The inquiry report which is incomplete itself cannot be treated as final for reaching at any conclusion. The Inquiry Officer has failed to conduct the inquiry as per the provision of Rule14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and he has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence present in this case and failed to give his assessment of the evidence in respect of each charge and also the reasons for his findings on each charge so that the inquiry report is not satisfactory. Hence the de-novo inquiry is necessary to inquire into the charges framed against the above said officer.

AND WHEREAS the undersigned considers that the another Inquiring authority should be appointed to inquire into the charges framed against the said Officer.

NOW THEREFORE, the undersigned in exercise of the powers delegated by the Board in its 77th meeting held on 19.6.2001 and in exercise of the powers conferred by subrule (2) of CCS (CCA) Rule1965, Rule14, hereby appoints Sh. Girdhari Lal Verma, Asstt. Secretary as the Inquiring Authority.”

3. This was followed by issuance of Annexure P11, I.e. order dated 02.03.2012, in terms whereof one Shri Ravinder Singh Thakur, Section Officer was appointed as a Presenting Officer. It is in this background that the present writ petition stands filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority (Annexure P10), dated 05.01.2012 is void ab initio, for the reason that Rule 14 and 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 do not confer any power upon the Disciplinary Authority to hold a denovo inquiry. While drawing the attention of the Court to the provisions of Rule 14 and also Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, learned counsel argued that the act of the Disciplinary Authority, ordering holding of denovo inquiry in fact is contrary to the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, reported in K.R. Deb Versus The Collector of Central