The Supreme Court recently held that the disciplinary authority under the Central Civil Service Rules is empowered to appoint a retired employee as an inquiry authority. It is not necessary that the inquiry officer should be a public servant.
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Bela M Trivedi was hearing an appeal against Odisha HC judgment which relied on Ravi Malik v. National Film Development Corporation to hold that a retired public servant could not have been appointed as an inquiry officer.
The Court distinguished it and said it wouldn’t be applicable in the present case. In that case, Rule 23(b) of Service Regulations,1982 of NFDC was applicable which specifically stated that the disciplinary authority may appoint a “public servant” to inquire into the misconduct of an employee. Whereas in this case, Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services, 1965 would apply where disciplinary authority may appoint an “authority” to inquire into the misconduct of a govt employee.
The court held thus “Therefore, the disciplinary authority is empowered to appoint a retired employee as an inquiry authority. It is not necessary that the inquiry officer should be a public servant. Hence, no fault can be found as the inquiry officer was not a public servant, but a retired officer.”
The Court also referred to Union of India v. PC Ramakrishnnaya which made a reference precedent set in The court noted that the Alok Kumar case had made it clear that Rule 9(3) used the word “other authority” and not “public servant” who may conduct an inquiry. It observed, “a retired officer could also be vested with the delegated authority of the disciplinary authority to hold the inquiry.
The Court therefore allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of HC which had upheld the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack bench.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
The respondent Jagdish Chandra Sethy had assailed the order of disciplinary authority before Central Administrative Tribunal at Cuttack. He contended that the authority had not recorded specific reasons why a retired government servant was appointed to act as an inquiry officer. The tribunal agreed and passed an order in his favor. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant approached the High Court which, again upheld the order of the tribunal.
