Disciplinary Authority Has No Power Or Right To Start Fresh Enquiry After Submission Of Enquiry Report: Patna High Court
The Patna High Court quashed the fresh inquiry order issued against a retired clerk in the Child Development Project Office.
The Patna High Court has clarified that the disciplinary authority has no power or right to start a fresh enquiry after the enquiry officer submits an enquiry report.
The Court quashed the fresh inquiry order issued against a retired clerk (Petitioner) in the Child Development Project Office and directed the disciplinary authority to pass a final order on the existing inquiry report within two weeks. The Court held that initiating a de novo inquiry after an inquiry report has been submitted is impermissible in law.
A Single Bench of Justice Arvind Singh Chandel held, “Thus, law is well settled that after submission of the enquiry report by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority has no power or right to start a fresh enquiry. However, vide impugned order 28.06.2023, the disciplinary authority started a fresh enquiry by issuing a fresh charge memo which is impermissible in law…In such view of the matter, the impugned order dated 28.06.2023 (Annexure P/18) is not sustainable and is, accordingly, set aside.”
Advocate Shashank Chandra appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate Kumari Amrita represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
After the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner, he was transferred to the District Welfare Office, where a criminal case was registered against him under Sections 467, 468, 471, 406, 420, 120B and 34 of the IPC. As a result, he was suspended and a departmental inquiry was initiated.
The first inquiry report led to his compulsory retirement. The Petitioner challenged this Order, where the High Court set aside the punishment and directed that the proceedings be restarted from the stage of the second show-cause notice. However, the disciplinary authority reissued the same charge memo, and after another inquiry, reimposed compulsory retirement.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court referred to the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court in State of Bihar v. Md Shamim Akhtar (2023), wherein it was held, “In that event disciplinary authority has option of issuing of show cause notice to the concerned person to the extent of disagreeing with the inquiring officer’s report or finding and he had option of remanding the matter to the inquiring authority to commence the inquiry from the defective stage and complete the process of inquiry or he/she can complete the inquiry.”
Similarly, in the case of Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar (2021), it was held, “No provision under the Rules contemplates a second departmental inquiry. In case, a Disciplinary Authority notices any serious defect having crept into the inquiry or some important witnesses could not be examined because of their nonavailability, he could have remitted the matter back to the Enquiring Authority for further inquiry as contemplated under sub-rule (1) of Rule 18 of the Rules.”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “The matter is remanded back to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order on the report of enquiry officer…Since this is the fourth round of litigation and the departmental enquiry is continuously going on for the last 11 years, the disciplinary authority is directed to pass order within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order…It is further directed that if the disciplinary authority remitted back the matter to the enquiry officer in the light of power given to him under Rule 18 (1) of the 2005 Rules then the enquiry officer would complete the enquiry proceeding as early as possible preferably within 90 days from the date of order passed by the disciplinary authority, if any.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition.
Cause Title: Praduman Kumar Prasad v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 12121 of 2023)
