IMPORTANT POINT
The appointment of an Inquiry Officer for disciplinary proceedings must comply with the rules and regulations set forth in the CDA Rules, and deviation from such rules may render the proceedings without jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

1. The writ petitioner being aggrieved with the appointment of an Inquiry Officer from outside the respondent Corporation, to inquire into the charges framed against the petitioner, on the ground that, the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules (CDA Rules) does not provide for the same, seeks a mandamus to set aside the said appointment, as also the pending disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.

2. The petitioner who is serving as an Assistant Accounts Officer in the respondent Corporation, it is alleged, had shown unruly and rude behaviour towards his Superior Officer, for which disciplinary proceedings had been drawn up against him, as per the CDA Rules, whereafter, a Memorandum of Charges and Statement of Imputation of Misconduct dated 06.10.2021 was served upon him. Prior to the institution of departmental proceedings, the respondent Corporation on the said allegation had on 12.05.2021, appointed a one man inquiry, which was conducted by a Director (Technical) who had given a report to the disciplinary authority, which went against the petitioner. As it appeared that, he was not given adequate opportunity, another inquiry committee comprising of 3 Executive Directors, to ascertain the culpability of the petitioner was constituted. On the basis of the report of the inquiry team, the aforementioned Memorandum of Charges was issued.

3. The petitioner thereafter, gave a detailed reply to the disciplinary authority denying of charges, but however, after a gap of 9 (nine) months, vide office order No. 162 dated 12.07.2022, another Inquiry Officer namely Shri. Pradip Pujari, Retired Superintendent of Police, Assam, was appointed. The petitioner by his own statements, cooperated with the said inquiry, but it appears on coming to learn that the earlier inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry team, was biased and prepared in haste and further that, the CDA Rules stipulated that an Officer to conduct a disciplinary inquiry against the employees of the Corporation should be appointed from amongst the officers of Corporation, then raised objections before the respondents. The objection of the petitioner was based on Rule 29.2, which provided that a disciplinary authority, may itself inquire, or appoint any officers of Corporation to conduct the inquiry. The petitioner therefore, resisted the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings, by maintaining that the Inquiry Officer not being an employee of the Corporation, was incompetent and lacked jurisdiction.

4. The petitioner after taking the above noted ground, did not cooperate any further and did not attend the subsequent hearings that were fixed before the Inquiry Officer. It has also been contended by the petitioner that, the earlier inquiry report submitted by the inquiry team, being illegal, in view of the revelation of one of its members, that the same was arrived at, under duress and intimidation, the entire proceedings were vitiated.

5. Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Syiem, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire proceedings are vitiated on two grounds, firstly, that the inquiry gone into by the three member committee of Executive Directors, which recommended disciplinary action against the petitioner stood disabled by the admission of one of the members, that the same was a contrived report and secondly that, the present inquiry being on the basis of the finding of the biased report and that too being conducted in violation of the CDA Rules, the entire disciplinary proceedings were liable to be annulled.

6. The learned Senior counsel submits that the respondent Corporation cannot deviate from Rule 29.2 of the CDA Rules, which provides for appointment of officer only from the Corporation itself to be appointed as Inquiry Officer, and in support thereof, has placed reliance on the following cases;

i) State of Punjab v. Bandeep Singh and Others (2016) 1 SCC 724

ii) Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. an