IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.456-457 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.21830-21831 of 2007)

Union of India Through President of ICAR    ...Appellant(s)

Versus

R.S. Shrivastava      ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

Leave granted.

Heard  Mr.  A.  Sharan,  learned  Additional  Solicitor  General  for  the

appellant, and the respondent, who has appeared in-person.

The  disciplinary  authority  initiated  departmental  inquiry  against  the

respondent  on  the  ground  of  violation  of  Rule  3(1)(ii)  and  (iii)  of  Central  Civil

Services  (Conduct)  Rules,  1964 as  extended to  ICAR employees.   The  respondent

challenged the same in OA No.1333 of 2004, which was dismissed by Allahabad Bench

of Central Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide its order dated 13th

December, 2004.  Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.19054 of 2005 filed against the order of

the  Tribunal  was  disposed  of  by  the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  with  a

direction that representation made by the respondent for change of the inquiry officer

be decided and till then the inquiry proceedings shall remain stayed.  Thereafter, by

an order dated  28.11.2005,  the  competent  authority  rejected   the

....2/-

- 2 -

representation of the respondent.  O.A. No.144 of 2006 filed by the respondent for

quashing the orders passed by the competent authority for initiation of disciplinary

proceedings and appointment of inquiry officer was dismissed by the Tribunal on 2nd

June, 2006.  Against the said order, the High Court was moved in writ petition, which

was registered as Writ Petition No.35336 of 2006.  The Division Bench of the High

Court passed several interim orders whereby repeated directions were issued to the

appellants herein to file affidavits on one or the other issues.  Hence, these appeals by

special leave.

A perusal of different orders passed by the High Court including orders

dated 20th July, 2007 and 5th October, 2007 which are subject matter of challenge in

these appeals shows that the High Court has been making a roving inquiry in relation

to matters which have direct bearing on the merits of the charge levelled against the

respondent  ignoring  the  fact  that  the  Tribunal  dismissed  the  application  of  the

respondent on the ground that it was pre-mature and there was no valid ground to

quash the proceedings of  the inquiry  at  that  stage.   In  our view,  the High Court

should  not  have  entertained  the  writ  petition  at  the  threshold  of  the  disciplinary

proceedings and passed orders touching the merits of the charge. Instead, the High

Court should have directed the disciplinary authority to conclude the inquiry after

giving opportunity of hearing to the respondent.

Accordingly,  the appeals are allowed,  impugned orders rendered by the

High Court are set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent is dismissed.

....3/-

- 3 -

Shri  A.  Sharan,  learned Additional  Solicitor General  stated that Dr.  A.

Mukherjee, who is presently conducting the inquiry will be changed and some other

person will be nominated as the inquiry officer.  He also gave out that the respondent

will be allowed to avail the services of defense assistant during the course of inquiry.

In  this  view  of  the  matter,  we  direct  that  the  competent  authority  shall  appoint

another inquiry officer within one month from today.  The new inquiry officer shall

proceed with the inquiry in accordance with the rules and principles of natural justice

and submit report to the disciplinary authority within a period of six months from the

date of nomination/appointment.  The disciplinary authority shall take final decision

in the matter within three months from the date of receipt of inquiry report and pass

appropriate order.

......................J.       [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, January 27, 2009.