Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from disciplinary proceedings against a Sub-Inspector of Central Excise who was dismissed from service following multiple departmental inquiries concerning an alleged misappropriation of Rs. 100. The employee was appointed in a temporary vacancy on September 20, 1958, and reported for duty on October 15, 1958. On May 30, 1959, he allegedly detained five maunds of onion from the house of one Sayed Ahmad at Ramendranagar; further, one Siddique Ahmad allegedly handed over Rs. 100 to him through Harendra Kumar Dutta on May 31, 1959, but the employee did not mention this realisation in the seizure report. A charge of concealing the realisation and misappropriating government money was framed by the Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs, Shillong. The first Inquiry Officer, Shri B. P. Barua, held an inquiry and reported on July 3, 1961 that the charge was not proved. The Collector then appointed a second Inquiry Officer, Shri R. K. P. Sinha, to conduct a supplementary open inquiry because prosecution witnesses had not been examined. The second Inquiry Officer reported on October 12, 1961 that there was nothing on record to prove acceptance of Rs. 100; he observed that the story appeared cooked up. Dissatisfied, the Collector wrote to the second Inquiry Officer on December 20, 1961 pointing out defects and directing examination of three witnesses. The second Inquiry Officer submitted a further report on January 20, 1962 stating no conclusive proof but that the employee's conduct may not be above board. On February 13, 1962, the Collector appointed a third Inquiry Officer, Shri K. P. Patnaik, to inquire afresh. The third officer reported on March 6, 1962 that the charge was proved. After show cause notice and explanation, the employee was dismissed on June 4, 1962. The employee filed a writ petition under Article 226 before the Judicial Commissioner for Tripura and Agartala, which dismissed it on February 16, 1966. He then appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The core legal issue was whether the multiple successive inquiries were permissible under Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. The appellant contended that the Collector lacked authority to appoint a third Inquiry Officer after earlier reports had exonerated him; that Rule 15 did not contemplate successive inquiries; and that the order dated February 13, 1962 was mala fide. The respondent defended the procedure. The Supreme Court examined Rule 15 and observed that, on its face, it provides for one inquiry. However, if no proper inquiry has occurred because of a serious defect or important witnesses were not available or examined, the Disciplinary Authority may ask the Inquiry Officer to record further evidence. But there is no provision for completely setting aside previous inquiries merely because the report does not appeal to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority has enough powers under Rule 9 to reconsider the evidence itself and come to its own conclusion. The Court held that the Collector's action in appointing a third Inquiry Officer was not contemplated by the rules, and the procedure was not only unwarranted but harassing. It seemed the Collector, instead of taking responsibility himself, was determined to get some officer to report against the appellant. Consequently, no proper inquiry had been conducted, leading to a breach of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The appeal was allowed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Departmental Inquiry - Rule 15 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 contemplates only one inquiry, but further evidence may be directed if serious defect or unavailability of witnesses - The rule does not permit setting aside previous inquiries solely because the report is not acceptable to the Disciplinary Authority - In this case, the Collector appointed three successive Inquiry Officers after two reports exonerated the employee, culminating in a finding of guilt and dismissal - Held that the Disciplinary Authority should have reconsidered the evidence itself under Rule 9 rather than ordering fresh inquiry; the procedure was not warranted and violated the rule (Paras 379-380). B) Constitutional Law - Reasonable Opportunity in Departmental Proceedings - Article 311(2) of Constitution of India - Repeated inquiries after exoneration reports constituted harassment and denial of proper inquiry - The Court found that the Collector was determined to get an adverse report, and the procedure adopted was not only contrary to the rules but also harassing - Held that no proper inquiry had been conducted, resulting in a breach of Article 311(2) (Paras 380). C) Service Law - Powers of Disciplinary Authority - Rule 9 and Rule 15(4) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 - Although the Disciplinary Authority may appoint an Inquiry Officer, it cannot nullify earlier inquiries without reason and direct a fresh inquiry when dissatisfied with reports - The Court held that the order dated February 13, 1962 appointing a third Inquiry Officer was without authority because earlier reports did not appeal to the Collector - The proper course was for the Disciplinary Authority to consider the record and record its own findings under Rule 9 (Paras 379-380).
Issue of Consideration
Whether multiple departmental inquiries held against the appellant were in accordance with Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957; whether the appointment of a third Inquiry Officer after earlier reports exonerated the appellant was valid; and whether the procedure resulted in a breach of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 contemplates only one inquiry and that the Collector's action in appointing a third Inquiry Officer was not contemplated by the rules. The Court held that no proper inquiry had been conducted and that there had been a breach of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The procedure adopted was not only unwarranted but harassing to the appellant.
Law Points
- Rule 15 of Central Civil Services (Classification
- Control and Appeal) Rules
- 1957 contemplates only one inquiry
- Disciplinary Authority may direct further evidence if serious defect or unavailability of witnesses
- Disciplinary Authority cannot set aside previous inquiries because report does not appeal
- Disciplinary Authority can reconsider evidence itself and record findings under Rule 9
- Multiple inquiries without authority are harassing and violate Article 311(2) of Constitution of India
