Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
AJAY MOHAN GOEL
Sanjeev Mahajan – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J.
1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-
“a) Issue an appropriate writ for quashing and setting aside the order dated 15.02.2025 (Annexure P-4) ordering a fresh/de-novo departmental enquiry against the petitioners.
b) That the de-novo enquiry may be held illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law as laid down in Indira Thakur’s case.”
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that in terms of office order dated 17.07.2023 (Annexure P-1), the Principal Secretary, Public Works Government of Himachal Pradesh initiated disciplinary action against the petitioners by way of common proceedings for the alleged negligence on their part in the construction of a bridge, while they remain posted in Kangra Division of the Public Works Department. Memorandum dated 17.07.2023 contained the statement of Article of Charges and statement of imputation of misconduct and the petitioners were called upon to submit their reply. Feeling dissatisfied with the reply filed by the petitioners, common disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Rule 14 and Rule 18 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 a
Disciplinary Authority cannot order de-novo inquiry under CCS (CCA) Rules upon dissatisfaction with Inquiry Officer's report; must proceed per Rule 15 by providing disagreement reasons or directing f....
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 wit....
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.
Disciplinary authorities cannot initiate a de-novo inquiry after prior exoneration without legal basis, affirming the need for adherence to established procedures in disciplinary actions.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that when a certain act is required to be done in a certain way, it should be done in that way only and not in any other manner. The failure to com....
Disciplinary authority cannot order de novo inquiry on same charges after first inquiry report without following Rule 9 procedure of remitting for further inquiry or providing report with disagreemen....
Disciplinary authorities cannot subject a government servant to repeated inquiries on the same charges without proper justification, and must follow established procedures.
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
