A Commission of Inquiry does not cease to exist upon submitting its report unless formally terminated by the government under Section 7 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, J.

Brief facts of the case:-

1.1 Although there was unanimous opinion of the esteemed members of the Division Bench on the substantive issues, however, there was difference of opinion on a small issue, which has resulted in reference to this Bench as third Judge. In substance, one esteemed brother Judge has held that it shall be open to the Commission to proceed further from the stage when notice under section 8B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 1952 Act') was required to be issued whereas the other respected brother Judge granted liberty to the Government to appoint a Commission of Inquiry. The difference has been summarized in the short order passed by the Bench on 10.01.2019 which reads as under:-

"Anupinder Singh Grewal,J. has authored separate judgment, wherein the conclusion in respect of broad issues dealt in the judgment written by Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. has been concurred. However, there is difference in the operative portion of the respective judgments. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. has concluded as under:

"69.Having perused the report, we find that it touches and opines on the conduct of the petitioner and affects the reputation thereof. In such circumstances, it was essential to have issued the notice under Section 8B of the Act which has not been done as the notice which was issued did not fulfil the conditions essentially required thereunder. Accordingly, the report submitted by the Commission is held to be non est and the same shall not be published. However, it shall be open for the Commission to proceed further from the stage when notice under Section 8B of the Act was required to be issued and submit fresh report in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of in the manner indicated hereinbefore."

According to Anupinder Singh Grewal,J., the following conclusion has been arrived:

"In the case at hand, the Commission of Inquiry was appointed on 14.5.2015 and its term was for a period of 6 months. The term was extended by period of 6 months vide notification dated 7.12.2015 and further extended till 31.8.2016 by notification dated 1.7.2016. The Commission submitted its report on 31.8.2016. The Commission is no longer in existence and thus, it would not be possible for it to issue afresh notice under Section 8B of the Act.

It is in those cases where the Commission is functioning that a direction could be issued for it to proceed afresh from the stage of issuing notice under Section 8B. As the tenure of the Commission has come to an end, it has submitted the report and ceased to exist only a fresh Commission can be appointed under the Act. In such circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice if the respondent is granted liberty to appoint a Commission of Inquiry on the same subject matter.

Resultantly, I would partly allow the petition. The report of the Commission is not sustainable and is hereby quashed. It shall not be published as it cannot be read against the petitioner and no action on the basis thereof be taken against the petitioner. The respondent No.1 would, however, be at liberty to appoint a Commission of Inquiry on the same subject matter."

In view of the difference in the operative portion of the judgments of Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. and Anupinder Singh Grewal,J., the matter be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.

In the meantime, the original record and the report of the Commission in sealed cover be returned to the Advocate General, Haryana, with the direction to produce the same as and when required by the Court."

1.2 The detailed facts, submissions of the learned counsel representing the parties and their respective opinions have elaborately been noticed and dealt with by the Court in the concurrent opinions except difference on a short but interesting issue. Hence, it is not considered necessary to narrate the detailed facts. However, in order to comprehend the controversy involved in the present case, the rel