Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 879 (MP)

Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. State of M. P.

2017-08-02

HEMANT GUPTA, VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA

body2017
JUDGMENT : VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, J. In this intra-court appeal, the appellant has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 7-10-2009, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, with a direction to the Disciplinary Authority to pass final order on the inquiry report furnished by the Inquiry Officer on 3/5-11-2007, after taking into consideration the defence of the petitioner expeditiously as possible, but not later than 3 months from the date of communication of the order. 2. In the writ petition, the main contention of the petitioner was that he was on deputation to the Narmada Valley Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘NDVA’) and was served with a charge sheet in respect to which, an inquiry was conducted. The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the NDVA to hold enquiry on the ground that Narmada Valley Development Authority is neither Disciplinary Authority nor the Appointing Authority of the petitioner. The petitioner had prayed a relief for quashing of the entire departmental proceedings, departmental inquiry and the charge sheet dated 9-7-1996 (Annexure P-1). 3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant confined his challenge only to the decision dated 15-2-2007 (Annexure R-13) and submitted that the decision of the competent authority to appoint fresh Inquiry Officer and holding a fresh de novo is de-horse to the provisions of Rule 15, M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules 1966’). It is submitted that as per the provisions of Rule-15, the Disciplinary Authority in the case of disagreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer can remand the matter to the Inquiring Authority for further inquiry and to submit the report but the authority cannot pass an order for holding fresh inquiry de novo. 4. The other grounds raised in the writ petition have not been pressed into service. The challenge has been confined to this sole ground. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State submitted that neither there is any illegality in the institution of the departmental inquiry nor in the charge-sheet issued to the appellant. 4. The other grounds raised in the writ petition have not been pressed into service. The challenge has been confined to this sole ground. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State submitted that neither there is any illegality in the institution of the departmental inquiry nor in the charge-sheet issued to the appellant. He further submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any error as after taking into consideration the provisions of Rules 14 and 15 of Rules, 1966, the learned Single Judge has directed the Disciplinary Authority to pass final order on the inquiry report dated 3/5-11-2007. 6. In order to appreciate the rival submissions of the parties, it is apposite to refer provisions of Rule 15 of Rules, 1966. Rule-15 is reproduced as under: “15. Action on the inquiry report.— (1) The disciplinary authority if it is not itself the inquiring authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the inquiring authority for further inquiry and report and the inquiring authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of rule 14 as for as may be. (2) The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the inquiring authority on any article of charge, records its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. (3) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its finding on all or any of the articles of charge is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in rule 10 should be imposed on the Government servant, it shall, notwithstanding any thing contained in rule 16, make an order imposing such penalty [but in doing so it shall record reasons in writing]: Provided that in every case where it is necessary to consult the Commission, the record of the inquiry shall be forwarded by the disciplinary authority to the Commission for its advice and such advice shall be taken into consideration before making any order imposing any penalty on the Government servant.” On perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is vivid that the Disciplinary Authority can disagree with the findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer and act upon his own conclusion. The requirement is that the Disciplinary Authority must record reasons for his disagreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. If the Disciplinary Authority give reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, then either he may act himself or he can remand the matter for further inquiry and the Inquiry Authority thereafter shall proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of Rule 14 as far as may be possible. 7. Further, inquiry does not mean De novo inquiry fresh, what is further inquiry as contemplated under the Rule came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of K.R. Dev v. The Collector of Central Excise, Shillong, (1971) 2 SCC 102 : AIR 1971 SC 1447 , where it was held that the said Rule provides for one inquiry but it may be possible, if in a particular case, there has been no proper inquiry because some serious defects has crept into the inquiry or some important witnesses were not available at the time of the inquiry or were not examined for some other reason, the Disciplinary Authority may ask the Inquiry Officer to record further evidence and that there is no provision in Rule 15 for completely setting aside previous inquiries on the ground that the report of the Inquiring Officer does not appeal to the Disciplinary Authority and the Disciplinary Authority has enough powers to reconsider the evidence itself and some to its own conclusion. 8. The same view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. M.C. Saxena, (1998) 3 SCC 385 , where the similar provision akin to Rule 15 of Rules, 1966 were taken into consideration. The said view has been further reiterated in the case of National Fertilizers Ltd. v. P.K. Khanna, (2005) 7 SCC 597 and also a judgment passed by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Kamal Kishore Bansal v. M.P.E.B., 1994 (1) MPWN 91 . It would mean that the Inquiry Officer would not be allowed to record the fresh evidence but would confined the inquiry as remanded by the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the material available with him and will not hold de novo inquiry in the matter. 9. It would mean that the Inquiry Officer would not be allowed to record the fresh evidence but would confined the inquiry as remanded by the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the material available with him and will not hold de novo inquiry in the matter. 9. Upon perusal of the decision dated 15-2-2007, which has been placed on record as Annexure R-13, we find that the reasons are recorded for disagreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer but the decision has been taken for a fresh inquiry by appointment of a new Inquiry Officer, which is not in accordance to the provisions of Rule 15 of Rules, 1966. No any other point was addressed before us. 10. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the appeal and the matter is remanded back to the Inquiry Officer to hold further inquiry in pursuant to the decision dated 15-2-2007 (Annexure R-13) 11. In view of the aforesaid, this writ appeal stands allowed and disposed of.