Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 25055
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
Thakur Jee Pandey – Appellant
Versus
Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited – Respondent
WPS No. 1855 of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ashish Shrivastava, Rahul Ambast, Ashutosh Shrivastava, Ananya Pandey
For the Respondents: Prafull N. Bharat, Akash Pandey
Under Rule 25(b)(1) of the Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Service Rules, 2007, the Disciplinary Authority is empowered to order a 'further inquiry' to fill gaps in evidence, but is legally barred from ordering a 'de novo' or fresh inquiry by setting aside the previous one.
Headnote:(A) Departmental Inquiry - Power to Remit - Interpretation of "Further Inquiry" - Rule 25(b)(1) of the Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Service Rules, 2007 empowers the Appointing Authority to remit a matter for a further inquiry report, but does not authorize the initiation of a fresh or de novo inquiry. (Para 8, 13)
(B) Administrative Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Setting aside previous inquiry - A Disciplinary Authority cannot completely set aside a previous inquiry simply because the report is incomplete, unclear, or does not appeal to the authority; the remedy is limited to recording further evidence. (Para 9, 11)
Issues: Whether the Disciplinary Authority is justified in directing a fresh/de novo inquiry instead of a further inquiry under Rule 25(b)(1) of the Rules, 2007.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the legality of an order directing a second departmental inquiry. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. contention regarding the scope of 'further inquiry' versus 'de novo inquiry' under service rules. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. rule 25(b)(1) permits remittal for further inquiry but not for a fresh de novo proceeding. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. judicial precedents establish that a second inquiry cannot be ordered simply because the first report is unsatisfactory. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. order for de novo inquiry is set aside as it is barred by the applicable service rules. (Para 13 , 14) |
Order On Board
1.Invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner herein has called in question, legality, validity and correctness of order dated 17.10.2018 by which the Disciplinary Authority has directed for fresh / second departmental inquiry against the petitioner.
2.The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop:-
2.1. Respondent No.1 herein instituted a departmental inquiry / disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in which Mr. T.C. Yadu, retired District Judge, was appointed as an Inquiry Officer and Mr. S.U. Khan, General Manager, was appointed as Presenting Officer. After the conclusion of the departmental inquiry, the inquiry report was submitted against the petitioner.
2.2. The inquiry report was considered by the Disciplinary Authority, respondent No.1 herein. By impugned order dated 17.10.2018, it has been held by the Disciplinary Authority that the inquiry has not been conducted in accordance with law and statements of all the witness have not been taken. It has further been held in the impugned order that inquiry report is incomplete and unclear and, therefore, directed to hold fresh departmental inquiry against the petitioner by appointing Mr. D.S. Sory, formal Additional Collector, as Inquiry Officer and Mr. S.K. Shrivastava, Accounts Officer, as Presenting Office, leading to filing of this writ petition questioning that order.
3.Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, would submit that Rule 25(b) (1) of the Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Service Rules, 2007 (for brevity “the Rules, 2007”) only empowers the Appointing Authority to remit the matter to the Inquiry Officer for submission of a further inquiry report, however, it does not authorize the Appointing Authority to make fresh departmental inquiry / de novo proceeding and, as such, impugned order dated 17.10.2018 is in violation of Rule 25(b)(1) of the Rules, 2007 and the same is liable to be set aside. In support of his submission, he would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of K.R. Deb v. The Collector of Central Excise, Shillon g, 1971 (2) SCC 102 followed in the matters of Kanailal Bera v. Union of India and others , (2011) 11 SCC 517 & Vijay Shankar Pandey v. Union of India and another , (2014) 10 SCC 589
4.Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents, would vehemently oppose the submission made by learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and support the impugned order. He would submit that the manner in which the petitioner had acted and committed huge illegality in purchase of organic manures/fertilizers, the Disciplinary Authority has rightly taken a decision to institute a fresh inquiry ignoring the earlier one which is warranted no interference invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and support the impugned order.
5.I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the records precisely.
6.A short question involved in the writ petition is whether in exercise of power under Rule 25(b) (1) of the Rules, 2007 [which is pari materia to Rule 15(1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965], the Disciplinary Authority is justified in d
