Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri K. Kamaladinni, a government officer, challenged an order dated 28 August 2018 directing a de novo inquiry into charges against him. He was suspended on 2 May 2013 and a charge memorandum was issued on 4 February 2015 alleging that he fraudulently awarded 847 works of the Public Works Department worth Rs.52.59 crores without publishing tenders, violating CPWD Manual provisions. An inquiry officer, Mr. Menino D'Souza, was appointed and submitted his report on 1 September 2017. Without setting aside that report or providing reasons for disagreement, the respondents ordered a de novo inquiry. The petitioner sought quashing of that order and consequential benefits. The court held that the impugned order was unsustainable as the disciplinary authority did not record any reasons for disagreeing with the inquiry officer's findings nor did it set aside the earlier report. The court quashed the order dated 28 August 2018 and directed the respondents to proceed with the disciplinary inquiry from the stage of the inquiry officer's report, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - De Novo Inquiry - Order for de novo inquiry without setting aside earlier inquiry report and without hearing delinquent officer is unsustainable - The disciplinary authority must record reasons for disagreement with the inquiry officer's findings and provide an opportunity of hearing before ordering a fresh inquiry (Paras 3-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the disciplinary authority can order a de novo inquiry without first setting aside the earlier inquiry report and without providing an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent officer
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 28 August 2018 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to proceed with the disciplinary inquiry from the stage of the inquiry officer's report dated 1 September 2017, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- De novo inquiry cannot be ordered without setting aside earlier inquiry report
- Disciplinary authority must record reasons for disagreement with inquiry officer's findings
- Natural justice requires opportunity of hearing before ordering de novo inquiry
