Delhi High Court: In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the judgment dated 07-11-2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘CAT’) whereby the decision of the Disciplinary Authority to remit the matter to the Inquiry Officer (‘IO’) for a fresh inquiry was quashed and set aside, a Division Bench of C. Hari Shankar* and Sudhir Kumar Jain, JJ. concurred with CAT in its finding that the justification provided in the order dated 23-12-2016 was not sustainable in law and therefore refused to interfere with the impugned judgment.
Background
In the present matter, the respondent was a 1990 batch IAS Officer of the Haryana Cadre. On 30-03-2005, disciplinary proceedings were instituted against him by issuance of a charge sheet under Rule 8 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 (‘AIS Rules’).
The first charge against the IAS Officer was that he had received a CDMA mobile phone on 28-02-2003 and the second charge was that he had entered into an unauthorized discussion of official matters related to the Delhi Development Authority, where he was posted on deputation at the time with the person from who he had received the said mobile phone.
Not being satisfied with the respondent’s reply to the charge sheet, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an IO to inquire into the charges. The IO, in his inquiry report, held that the first allegation was partly proved whereas, the second allegation was not proved.
The Disciplinary Authority forwarded the Inquiry Report to the Central Vigilance Commission (‘CVC’) for second stage advice. The CVC, vide letter dated 26-07-2012, advised dropping of the charges against the IAS Officer, without prejudice to the criminal case pending against him.
A copy of the Inquiry Report was sent to the IAS Officer, to which he submitted his reply on 25-10-2012. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority remitted the matter to the IO under Rule 9(1) of the AIS Rules for a fresh inquiry by order dated 23-12-2016, which formed the basis of the entire controversy in the present matter.
The IAS Officer filed an application before CAT to challenge the order dated 23-12-2016. CAT accepted the submissions of the IAS Officer and quashed as well as set aside the decision of the Disciplinary Authority to remit the matter to the IO for a fresh inquiry. It was held that once the Disciplinary Authority had referred the Inquiry Report to the CVC, obtained advice of the CVC, and had sent a copy of the Inquiry Report to the IAS Officer, it could not fall back on Rule 9(1).
Analysis and Decision
The Court was hesitant to accept the first ground on which CAT had proceeded which said that having referred the matter to the CVC for its advice and after providing a copy of the Inquiry Report to the IAS Officer, the Disciplinary Authority could not have invoked Rule 9(1) to remit the matter to the IO for further inquiry.
The Court said that it was unable to find any statutory proscription in the rules on the Disciplinary Authority remitting the matter to the IO for a fresh inquiry under Rule 9(1) after the copy of the enquiry report had been provided to the Charged Officer or after the matter had been referred to the CVC and advice had been obtained.
The Court agreed to the IAS Officer’s submission that the invocation of Rule 9(1) by the IO was not in terms of the Rule itself and said that it unable to find any substantial reason for remitting the matter as was required by Rule 9(1) which specified that the Disciplinary Authority can only choose to remit the matter to the IO for further enquiry for reasons recorded in writing.
The Court said that when a Rule requires reasons to be recorded in writing, they have to be meaningful and self-speaking reasons. It was said that they cannot be left in the realm of conjectures and surmise. The court said that the reasoning given was a mere lip service to the requirement of Rule 9(1) and was left delightfully in the realm of conjecture.
Thus, the Court said that the contents of the order dated 23-12-2016 did not constitute ‘reasons to be recorded in writing’ as envisaged by Rule 9(1) of the AIS Rules.
Further, the Court said that the note below Rule 8(16) specifically proscribes the production of new evidence to fill up any gap in the existing evidence during the inquiry proceedings before the IO. It was also said that the order dated 23-12-2016, while remitting the matter to the IO for a fresh inquiry, did not state that there was any lacuna in the evidence that was produced before the IO.
The court stated that Rule 8(16) made it apparent that there was a subjective distinction between lacunae in the exiting evidence and evidence that is altogether new. It was noted that the order dated 23-12-2016 manifested the intent of the Disciplinary Authority to produce new evidence before the IO that might have altered the final findings of the IO if they would have been produced in the first instance. Such exercise, the Court said, is forbidden by Rule 8(16) of the AIS Rules.
The Court found substance in the IAS Officer’s contention that by remitting the matter to the IO for a fresh enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority wanted to fill in the gaps in the earlier enquiry report and to ensure that a case was made out against the IAS Officer. It was said that this presumption is supported by the fact that the order dated 23-12-2016 also changed the earlier IO.
The Court was satisfied that the events which preceded the issuance of order dated 23-12-2016, cast a cloud on its bona fides and seemed to make out a case in which the Disciplinary Authority wanted to ensure that the charges against the IAS Officer were proved.
Thus, the Court found no reason to interfere with the ultimate decision of CAT, and dismissed the petition.
[Union of India v. Anand Mohan Sharan, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7151, Decided on 08-10-2024]
*Judgment by Justice C. Hari Shankar
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner — CGSC Pratima N. Lakra, Advocate Chandan Prajapati
For Respondents — Sr. Advocate A.K. Behera, Advocate Amarendra P. Singh
Buy Constitution of India HERE
