R. R. Bharti vs Union Of India & Others

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicant is working as Deputy Director in the Sports Authority of India. The Disciplinary Authority (DA) issued a charge memo dated

03.07.2019 framing certain articles of charge. The applicant submitted his reply. Not satisfied with the same, the DA appointed one Shri Sudhir

Krishna, IAS(retd.) as the Inquiry Officer (IO) on 24.07.2019. However, on 03.03.2020, the DA has appointed another person by name Satish

Chandra Dubedi, General Manager (Vigilance), Cement Corporation of India Ltd. as the Inquiring Authority. Thereafter, he issued a notice for

hearing to the applicant, proposing to conduct further inquiry.

This OA is filed challenging the order dated 03.03.2020 and the subsequent orders/notices dated 09.03.2020 and 18.03.2020 for further inquiry. The

applicant contends that the inquiry was entrusted to one Shri Sudhir Krishna, IAS(Retd.) and that he submitted a report on 13.09.2019, and instead of

taking a decision thereon, the impugned order dated 03.03.2020 is passed, as though no report was submitted by the IO and that another IO is

appointed wrongly stating that the earlier IO is not available. Various other grounds are also urged.

The respondents filed a short reply to the plea of the applicant. It is stated that the IO submitted the report on 13.09.2019. It is further stated that on

finding that there are certain lacunae in the report, it has been decided by the DA to conduct further inquiry under Rule 15(1) of CCS (CCA) Rules,

1965, and accordingly, the impugned orders were passed.

We heard Shri S. Sunil, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Geetanjali Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.

Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant, by issuing a charge memo. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the

applicant, the DA appointed another IO. Without taking further steps in that behalf, he passed the impugned order dated 03.03.2019. It reads as

under:-

“Whereas an inquiry under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 is being held against Shri R.R.

Bharati, Deputy Director.

Whereas Shri Sudhir Krishna, IAS(Retd.) was appointed inquiring authority to inquire into the charges against Shri R.R. Bharati, Deputy Director vide

order No.SAI(Pers.)/1181/92-Vol.III/757 dated 24.07.2019.

And whereas Shri Sudhir Krishna, IAS (Retd.) after having heard and recorded the whole/part of the evidence is not available and it is necessary to

appoint another officer as inquiring authority to inquire into the charges against Shri R.R. Bharati.

Now, therefore, the undersigned, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub rule (2) read with sub rule (22) of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rule 1965

whereby appoints Shri Satish Chandra Dubedi, General Manager/Additional General Manager (Vig.), Cement Corporation of India Ltd. as inquiring

authority to inquire into the charges framed against the said Shri R.R. Bharati, vice Shri Sudhir Krishna, IAS (Retd.)’

The impugned order indicates that the appointment of Shri Satish Chandra Dubedi as IO was on account of non availability of the IO by name Shri

Sudhir Krishna, IAS(Retd.). It is not even mentioned that Shri Sudhir Krishna submitted a report or that reply submitted by the applicant was not found

satisfactory. On the contrary the respondents have mentioned in the paragraphs 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit as under:-

“6. That it is submitted that the Inquiring Authority Sh. Sudhir Krishana, IAS (Retd) submitted his findings/Inquiry Report on 13.09.2020. The

Inquiry Report of the Inquiring Officer was examined under Rule 15(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

That it is submitted that on examination of Inquiry Report of the Inquiring Authority, it has been observed that the Inquiring Authority has committed

the procedural lacunae during the course of inquiry proceedings. The following procedural lapses are found by the Disciplinary Authority:

“(i) That the Applicant/Charged Official had pleaded not guilty, vide Daily Order Sheet dated 21.08.2019 so the Inquiring Authority was required to

complete the preliminaries of the inquiry proceedings under Rule 14(7) to 14(13) of CCA (CCA) Rules, 1965. After such completion of preliminaries,

Inquiries officer should have allowed the Presenting Officer to produce the oral and documentary evidence on behalf of Disciplinary Authority.

Moreover, it is submitted that the Inquiring Officer stated that he had requested Director General/Respondent, Sports Authority of India to examine if

the three (03) witnesses listed in the Memorandum of Article of Charge should be retained or omitted for the inquiry. The step of the Inquiry officer

was not correct, once the Charged Official/Applicant had denied the Article of Charges, the Inquiring Officer should not have enquired about the

relevance of the state of witnesses rather continued with procedure as per Rules.

Daily Order Sheet dated 09.08.2019 of Preliminarily Hearing was generated by the Inquiring Authority. Copy of the Daily Order Sheet dated

09.08.2019 and 21.08.2019 have been annexed with OA and market as Annexure A-7(colly).

(ii) That there have been generated total 10 Daily Order Sheets during the course of inquiry proceedings but not even a Daily Order Sheet reflects

that the listed documents were taken on record and marked as Exhibit on behalf of Disciplinary case and not also about defence documents in Daily

Order Sheets by the Inquiring Authority. Thus, the Inquiry Report has not been submitted in terms of laid down provisions under Rule 14(23)(i) & (ii)

of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 by the Inquiring Officer. Copies of Daily Order Sheets are annexed with O.A and marked as Annexure A-7 (Colly), may

be perused by Hon’ble Court.

(iii) That as per the Daily Order Sheet dated 23.08.2019, Inquiring Officer directed the Charged Official/Applicant to submit his written reply to each

of the Article of Charges by 03.09.2019 with a copy to Presenting Officer. Inquiring Officer has not followed the laid down procedure under Rules.

As per Rule 14(16) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the Charged Official/Applicant can submit his defence after the case of Disciplinary Authority is

closed but before starting of the case which is for Disciplinary Authority Case, the Charged Official/Applicant was asked to submit his written reply

by the Inquiring Authority in violation of Rules.

(iv) That the Inquiring Authority asked the Presenting Officer to submit his statement incorporating comments on the reply of the Charged

Official/Applicant vide daily Order Sheet No. 7 dated 03.09.2019. Thereafter, the Presenting Officer submitted his statement dated 06.09.2019 which

is against the Rule 14(16) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

That it is submitted that Rule 14(16) of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 stipulates that after the case of Disciplinary Authority is closed the Government

Servant is required to state his defence orally or in writing as he may prefer. At this stage when Presenting Officer submitted the statement the case

of Disciplinary Authority was not even started because the Presenting Officer was not asked to present his case through documentary and oral

evidences.

(v) That all the witnesses were examined by 12.096.2020 i.e., after submission of Presenting Officer which is entirely against the provisions of Rule

14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

(vi) That the Inquiring officer mentioned after examination of prosecution as well as defence witnesses all the steps of inquiry were completed but as

per Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the Inquiring Authority has not asked the mandatory question from the Charged Official/Applicant for the

purpose of enabling him to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.

vii. That after completion of production of evidences, as per Rules, the Inquiring Officer should have given the opportunity to the Presenting Officer

and charged Official/Applicant to permit them to file the Written Briefs in their respective cases. But Inquiring officer has not called for written Briefs

from the Presenting Officer and Charged Official/Applicant in accordance with Rules 14(19) of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965.â€​

A comparison of the impugned order on the one hand and plea of the respondents in the counter affidavit on the other, shows that there is a total

mismatch. In case the DA is not satisfied with the report of the earlier IO, the course of action is to direct further inquiry or to issue disagreement

note, and then to take the further steps in accordance with law. The impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that no mention is made in it

to the report of earlier IO, and reply thereto submitted by the applicant.

Therefore, we allow the OA and set aside the impugned order leaving it open to the competent authority to take steps in accordance with law.

There shall be no order as to costs.