Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1148 (MP)

SUBHASH CHANDRA v. UNION OF INDIA

2006-09-27

DIPAK MISRA, R.S.JHA

body2006
R. S. JHA, J. ( 1 ) THE Petitioner in the present petition has challenged the order dated July 29, 2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, jabalpur in O. A. No. 751/2001. ( 2 ) THE brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the case are that petitioner who is a Charge-man Grade-II working in the establishment of respondent No. 3 was served with a chargesheet on December 11, 1999 under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CCS (CCA) Rules' ). The petitioner submitted a representation against the said chargesheet and requested the inspection of certain documents as well as the report on the basis of which the charge-sheet was issued which was permitted by the respondents. The petitioner denied the charges in toto and had requested the authorities to hold a regular inquiry, but the authorities without conducting an inquiry, imposed a minor penalty of withholding one increment for the period of one year without cumulative effect i. e. from order dated March 26, 2000 only on considering the representation of the petitioner. No reasons have been mentioned by the authorities in the order impugned, either for imposing the punishment or for not holding an enquiry. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the appellate authorities by order dated September 11, 2000. The petitioner thereafter challenged the order imposing penalty by filing a petition before the tribunal. The petitioner also filed a review petition which is dismissed by order dated december 28, 2001. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition before the Central administrative Tribunal which has also been dismissed by the impugned order dated July 29, 2004, hence this petition. ( 3 ) THE only issue raised by the petitioner before this Court is that in view of the Rules 16 (1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. the respondents were bound to hold a departmental inquiry, as the petitioner had denied all. the charges in toto and in any case the authorities should have formed an opinion after due application of mind as to whether an inquiry was necessary or not. ( 4 ) TO appreciate the controversy in the proper perspective, it is necessary to take into consideration the provisions of Rules 16 of the ccs (CCA) Rules as under: "16. the charges in toto and in any case the authorities should have formed an opinion after due application of mind as to whether an inquiry was necessary or not. ( 4 ) TO appreciate the controversy in the proper perspective, it is necessary to take into consideration the provisions of Rules 16 of the ccs (CCA) Rules as under: "16. Procedure for imposing minor penalties: (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3)of Rule 15, no order imposing on a government servant any of the penalties specified in clause (i) to (iv) of Rule 11 shall be made except after (a) informing the Government servant in writing of the proposed to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken, and giving him reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal; (b) holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in sub- rules (3) to (23) of Rule 14, in every case in which the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary; (c) taking the representation, if any, submitted by the Government servant under clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any: held under clause (b) into consideration; (d) recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour; and (e) consulting the Commission where such consultation is necessary. The Government of India vide its instructions issued on October 28, 1985 has clarified the matter and issued instructions in the following terms: Government of India's Instructions (1) Holding of inquiry when requested by the delinquent: instructions the Staff side of the Committee of the national Council (JCM) set up to consider revision of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 had suggested that Rule 16 (1) should be amended so as to provide for holding an inquiry even for imposition of minor penalty, if the accused employee requested for such an inquiry. 2. The above suggestion has been given a detailed consideration. Rule 16 (l-A) of the ccs (CCA) Rules 1965 provides for the holding of an inquiry even when a minor penalty is to be imposed. Rule 16 (1) ibid, leaves it to the discretion of disciplinary authority to decide whether an inquiry should be held or not. 2. The above suggestion has been given a detailed consideration. Rule 16 (l-A) of the ccs (CCA) Rules 1965 provides for the holding of an inquiry even when a minor penalty is to be imposed. Rule 16 (1) ibid, leaves it to the discretion of disciplinary authority to decide whether an inquiry should be held or not. The implication of this rule is that on receipt of representation of Government servant concerned on the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour communicated to him, the disciplinary authority should apply its mind to all facts and circumstances and the reasons urged in the representation for holding a detailed inquiry and form an opinion whether an inquiry is necessary or not. In a case where a delinquent Government servant has asked for inspection of certain documents and cross- examination of the prosecution witnesses, the disciplinary authority should naturally apply its mind more closely to the request and should not reject the request solely on the ground that an inquiry is not mandatory. If the records indicate that not-withstanding the points urged by the government servant, the disciplinary authority could after due consideration, come to the conclusion that an inquiry is not necessary, it should say so in writing indicating its reasons, instead of rejecting the request for holding inquiry summarily without any indication that it has applied its mind to the request, as such an action could be construed as denial of natural justice. " ( 5 ) FROM a perusal of the Rule 16 as well as the Government of India Instructions quoted above, it is clear that it is incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to apply its mind to all the facts and circumstances after receiving the representation and to form a definite opinion as to whether an inquiry is necessary or not, and in case the authorities decide not to hold an inquiry, it should say so in writing by giving reasons. ( 6 ) FROM a perusal of the record, it is apparent that the disciplinary authority has not applied its mind to the issue as to whether it was necessary to hold a departmental inquiry or that it could be dispensed with. ( 6 ) FROM a perusal of the record, it is apparent that the disciplinary authority has not applied its mind to the issue as to whether it was necessary to hold a departmental inquiry or that it could be dispensed with. In the facts and circumstances of the case, without entering into the factual matrix, we think it apposite to remand the matter to the disciplinary authority to re-consider the matter in view of the provisions of Rule 16 and the Government of india Instructions dated October 28, 1985 to re-consider the request of the petitioner to hold an inquiry and after giving him due opportunity of hearing and after bestowing its anxious consideration thereon pass a reasoned order and thereafter to proceed further in the inquiry in accordance with law. ( 7 ) THE petition is allowed to the extent indicated above and the orders of the Central administrative Tribunal dated July 29, 2004 passed in O. A. No. 751/01, the order imposing punishment dated March 26, 2000, the appellate order dated September 11, 2000 and the revisional order dated December 28, 2001 are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. .