Back
2017 Supreme(J&K) 53
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, J.
Ashok Kumar – Appellant
Vs.
U.O.I. and others – Respondents
MP No. 1 of 2016 in SWP No.210 of 2005
Decided on : 27-02-2017.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. M. R. Qureshi, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Danish Butt, CGSC.
Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Class, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 provides for only one enquiry and does not allow for successive enquiries.
Headnote:
Rule 15 - Successive Enquiries - CRPF Act, 1949, Rule 27 of CRPF Rules, 1955, Central Civil Services (Class, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 - 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the dismissal order. The petitioner was subjected to a departmental enquiry, and after the first enquiry, a fresh enquiry was ordered, leading to the petitioner's dismissal. The legality of the second enquiry is challenged.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the second enquiry ordered by the Commandant was illegal and contrary to Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Class, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 and the judgment of the Apex Court. The petitioner was entitled to arrears of salary and consequential benefits for the period of wrongful dismissal.
Issues: The legality of the second enquiry, entitlement to salary and consequential benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: Rule 15 provides for only one enquiry and does not envisage successive enquiries. The court relied on the judgment of the Apex Court to establish that no proper enquiry was conducted, leading to a breach of Article 311, Clause 2 of the Constitution of India. The court also considered precedents to determine the entitlement to salary and consequential benefits.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the dismissal order was quashed. The petitioner was entitled to be treated as in service and to receive salary and consequential benefits for the period of wrongful dismissal.
2. Briefly stated the material facts are as under:-
3. A departmental enquiry came to be initiated against the petitioner by the Commandant 90th Battalion of the CRPF in exercise of the powers vested with him under Rule 27 of CRPF Rules, 1955 read with Section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949, vide his communication dated 24.10.1996, on four charges, details whereof may not be absolutely necessary at this stage. The said officer appears to have conducted the enquiry and submitted his report dated 19.02.1997, whereby three out of four charges were held not proved, while one charge appeared to be quite inconsequential.
4. After submission of the report before the Commanding Officer, it appears that not being satisfied with the same, he again ordered a fresh enquiry to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner, the reasons thereof were mentioned as under:-
a. As per Co-8/85, the preliminary enquiry report is not admissible in evidence and should not be exhibited in the departmental proceedings. Since in the D.E. proceedings against L.NK Ashok Kumar, the COI findings/ opinion have been attached, the instructions rules have been violated. Thus, it is to be corrected.
b. It is observed that the statements of PW-1 and PW-10 of C.O.I. have not been recorded by the Enquiry Officer during the course of D.E. Their statements are essential and are to be recorded to substantiate the articles of charge framed against the delinquent.
c. The findings/opinion of C.O.I. was relied upon while conducting D.E. but copies of statements recorded in the C.O.I. have not been supplied which is incorrect.
d. Statement of Shri S. D. S. Patwal, Asstt. Comdt (OC-C/9C) recorded is incomplete and statement of Dr. A. A. Agnihotri, CMO, 20 Bedded Hospital, Srinagar should also have been recorded to substantiate injury sustained by No. 830070692 L. NK M. M. Pillai, which has not been done.
5. Based upon the decision so taken, fresh departmental enquiry proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Consequent thereupon, the DIG, CRPF Passed the order impugned dated 20.02.1998, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service. An appeal was also preferred against the aforesaid order before the Inspector General of Police, CRPF, which also stood dismissed. Hence the present petition.
6. The main ground of challenge to the order of dismissal is that the second enquiry ordered by the Commandant was illegal. Reference in this regard was made to Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Class, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 to highlight the point that the said rule did not contemplate successive enquiries.
At this stage, it is relevant to reproduce Rule 15(1) of the Central Civil Services (Class, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, which reads as under:-
"(1) Without prejudice to the, provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiry) Act, 1950, no order imposing on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in clauses (iv) to (vii) of rule 13 shall be passed except after an inquiry, held, as far as may be, in manner hereinafter provided.”
Clause (2) of rule 15 provides for framing of charges and communication in writing to the government servant of these charges with the statement of allegations on which they are based, and it also provides for a written statement of defence. Under clause (3) the government servant is entitled to inspect and take extracts from such official records as he may specify, subject to certain exceptions. Under clause (4) on receipt of the written statement of defence the Disciplinary Authority may itself enquire into such of the charges as are not admitted, or if it considers it necessary so to do, appoint a Board of Inquiry or an Inquiring Officer for the purpose. Clause (7) provides that at the conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiring Authority shall prepare a rep
