Disciplinary authority cannot order de novo inquiry or supplementary charge-sheet after initial inquiry report without sharing it with charged officer, violating procedural rules.

ORDER (ORAL)

Hon’ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A)

The applicant herein has retired as Director (Project) from National Buildings Construction Corporation (NBCC). He was subjected to a disciplinary inquiry under Rule 8 of the NBCC Disciplinary Rules. On 22.04.2022, the Inquiry Officer submitted the inquiry report for consideration of the disciplinary authority. However, the disciplinary authority did not accept the inquiry report on account of requirement of some further investigation into the lapse said to be attributed to the applicant and took a decision to serve a supplementary charge sheet to the Charged Officer, i.e., the present applicant. The decision with respect to issuance of supplementary charge sheet is set to have been taken on the advice of CVC. The disciplinary authority directed the Inquiry Officer to conduct the inquiry "from the scratch" and thereafter submit a consolidated inquiry report. Aggrieved by this order of the disciplinary authority issued on 06.01.2023, the applicant has approached this Tribunal by virtue of the instant Original Application seeking the following relief(s):-

"A. To allow the present Application;

B. Quash and set aside the impugned [Annexure: A-1], as well as Rule Nos 8 (3) (Explanation), Rule Nos 8 (6), Rule No. 10(proviso) of the NBCC (Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1993), and the proposed disciplinary proceedings as being bad in law;

C. Grant all consequential benefits flowing from the above;

D. Allow exemplary costs of the application; and 

E. To issue any such and further order/directions this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he shall not press for the relief with respect to quashing and setting aside all the rules as outlined in para 8 (B). He clarifies that what the applicant seeks at this stage is quashing and setting aside of the impugned order (Annexure A-1) and the proposed disciplinary proceedings on the ground that they are in contravention to the law.

3. Learned counsel has pointed out that the facts, circumstances and also the substantive issue involved in the present Original Application is identical to the one decided on 15.12.2023 in O.A. No. 1080/2023 titled Rajendra Chaudhari versus Union of India & Ors. Drawing attention to the detailed observations and directions contained therein, learned counsel submits that there is no cause to deviate from the order passed in the said OA as the facts are identical and so are the issues.

4. Learned counsel further claims that in respect of a retired employee the disciplinary proceeding cannot be instituted in respect to any event which took place more than four years before the institution of such disciplinary proceedings. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the alleged lapses for which the applicant is being held responsible are beyond this period of four years prior to his retirement. Hence, on this sole ground too.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contests this statement pointing out that the order dated 06.01.2023 does not call for de-novo disciplinary proceedings but is merely a continuation of disciplinary proceedings which were initiated on 26.04.2021, prior to the retirement of the present applicant. Hence, provisions of Rule 8 of the NBCC Disciplinary Rules will certainly not get attracted in this matter.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents has further drawn attention to the detailed submissions he had made while arguing in the matter pertaining to Rajendra Chaudhri vs. Union of India & Ors., OA No. 1080/2023 and has reiterated the arguments put forth therein