Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a writ petition challenging an order dated 24.12.2025 issued by the Commissioner and Director of Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats, directing a de novo departmental inquiry against the petitioner, a Water Supply and Sanitation Engineer, by appointing a new Inquiry Officer. The petitioner had faced allegations of misconduct and financial irregularities in 2020, leading to a preliminary inquiry and a charge memorandum dated 17.08.2023 with three charges under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979. A regular departmental inquiry was conducted, culminating in an inquiry report submitted to the competent authority. However, without furnishing the report to the petitioner or taking a decision thereon, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order for a fresh inquiry. The petitioner sought quashing of this order, arguing it violated Rule 9 of the 1979 Rules and principles of natural justice. The respondents contended that the authority could order a new inquiry if dissatisfied with the report and that natural justice was satisfied as the petitioner participated in the fresh inquiry. The core legal issue was whether the disciplinary authority could direct a de novo inquiry without first acting on the concluded report under Rule 9. The court analyzed Rule 9, which outlines a structured process: the authority may remit for further inquiry with reasons, must consider the report and record findings, provide the report and tentative reasons for disagreement to the delinquent for representation, and then proceed to penalty. The court held that this scheme does not allow ignoring a concluded report and starting a fresh inquiry on the same charges. Citing precedents like K.R. Deb v. Collector of Central Excise, Shillong and Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, the court emphasized that service jurisprudence prohibits repeated inquiries absent statutory authority and requires natural justice, including furnishing the report and reasons for disagreement. The court found the impugned order violated both the statutory framework and natural justice principles. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the order for de novo inquiry was quashed and set aside.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Departmental Inquiry - De Novo Inquiry - Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979, Rule 9 - Disciplinary authority directed de novo inquiry after concluded inquiry report without acting on report under Rule 9 - Court held Rule 9 does not permit ignoring concluded report and ordering fresh inquiry on same charges; authority must remit for further inquiry or disagree with reasons and provide opportunity - Violation of statutory scheme and natural justice (Paras 6-8). B) Service Law - Natural Justice - Inquiry Report and Disagreement - Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979, Rule 9(2) - Disciplinary authority ordered de novo inquiry without furnishing inquiry report or tentative reasons for disagreement - Court held delinquent entitled to copy of report and opportunity to represent against tentative reasons before adverse action - Failure violates principles of natural justice as per precedents (Paras 4, 10-11).
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: Whether, after an inquiry under Rule 8 has been concluded and an inquiry report has been submitted, the disciplinary authority can, without first acting upon that report in accordance with Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979, direct a de novo inquiry on the same charges by appointing a new Inquiry Officer
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
Petition allowed; impugned order dated 24.12.2025 quashed and set aside
