REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6743 OF 2010 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.16683/2009]

Union of India & Ors.      … Appellants Versus

P.C. Ramakrishnayya      … Respondent  

JUDGMENT

AFTAB ALAM,J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This  appeal  raises  the  question  regarding  the  validity  of  a  

departmental  inquiry,  under  rule  14  (2)  of  the  Central  Civil  Services  

(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 held and conducted by an  

Inquiry Officer who was not a serving officer but whose name was taken  

from  a  panel  of  retired  officers  prepared  for  the  purpose  of  holding  

departmental inquiries.

3.  The respondent was an employee of the Geological Survey of India  

(hereafter ‘GSI’) and at the material time he was holding a Group ‘B’ post.  

He  was  due  to  superannuate  from  service  on  November  30,  2000.  On  

November  24,  2000,  he  was  served  with  a  show  cause  notice  dated  

November 23, 2000 in connection with various charges and asking him to

give his explanation within a week. The respondent gave his reply to the  

show cause notice but it was not found satisfactory and a charge-sheet was  

issued against him. One Shri S.M.M.V. Krishna Rao, was appointed as the  

Inquiry  Officer  who  was  selected  from  a  panel  of  retired  officers  for  

appointment  as  Inquiry  Officers  approved  by  the  Central  Vigilance  

Commission. The respondent took serious objection to the appointment of  

Shri Krishna Rao as Inquiry Officer, who was not a serving officer of the  

GSI but a retired Chief General Manager of IDBI. The respondent did not  

take  part  in  the  departmental  inquiry  and  strongly  challenged  the  

competence  and  authority  of  Shri  Krishna  Rao  to  hold  and  conduct  the  

departmental inquiry against him. All through the disciplinary proceedings,  

the  respondent  stubbornly  stuck  to  his  stand  and  in  response  to  notices  

issued by the Inquiry Officer in regard to the schedule of the inquiry his  

response would be that he had no authority to hold the inquiry. As a result of  

his non-participation an ex parte inquiry was held in which the charges were  

found established against  him. The disciplinary authority then sent him a  

notice along with a copy of the inquiry report, calling upon him to make his  

representation, if any, on the inquiry report within 15 days. In response to  

the notice, the respondent once again reiterated that the inquiry held against  

him was illegal and invalid. Eventually, by order dated July 7, 2003, he was  

2

given the punishment of cut in pension by 10% for 2 years.  

4. The respondent challenged the punishment order before the Central  

Administrative Tribunal,  Hyderabad Bench,  Hyderabad,  in OA no.531 of  

2004. The challenge to the punishment order was mainly on the ground that  

the punishment order was passed on the basis of an invalid departmental  

inquiry inasmuch as the Inquiry Officer had no competence or authority to  

conduct the inquiry. The Tribunal by its judgment dated December 17, 2007,  

upheld  the  respondent’s  contention,  set  aside  the  punishment  order  and  

remanded the matter ordering as follows:

“25. In view of the above, we quash and set aside the order of  the  disciplinary  authority  dated  07.07.2003  and  direct  the  authority to consider the objections raised by the applicant as  mentioned  above  including  the  service  of  notice  and  punishment  imposed  and  pass  appropriate  order  thin  (sic  within) a period of two months from the date of communication  of the order. The disciplinary authority, while considering the  same  shall  keep  in  mind  the  verdict  of  the  Apex  court  as  pointed out by the applicant.”

5. The  appellants  took  the  matter  to  the  High Court  in  Writ  petition  

no.18584 of 2008 and the High Court by its order dated September 19, 2008  

affirmed the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal and dismissed the  

appellants’ writ petition.  

6. The appellants  have  now brought  this  matter  in  appeal  before  this  

Court.  

3

7. Before  adverting  to  the  merits  of  the  case,  we must  note  a  rather  

curious feature in the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal and the  

High  Court.  While  upholding  the  respondent’s  contention  that  a  serving  

officer  alone  could  be  appointed  as  Inquiry  Officer  for  holding  a  

departmental inquiry under rule 14 (2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 the  

Tribunal has referred to and relied upon two decisions of this Court. One, in  

the  case  of  Ravi  Mack  (sic  Ravi  Malik)  vs.  National  Film Development   

Corporation  Ltd.  & Ors,   2008 SCC (L&S) 882 which  is  referred to  in  

paragraph 10 of the Tribunal judgment (at page 167 of the Paper Book). No  

exception can be taken to this reference. But in the concluding portion of  

paragraph 8 of its judgment (at page 165 of the Paper Book) the Tribunal  

also quotes the following extract purportedly from a decision of this Court in  

National High School, Madras vs. Education Tribunal,  AIR 1992 SC 717.

"The  principle  in  this  regard  is  that  if  the  rules  specifically  provide that  a  person not  belonging to  the  service concerned or even outsider can be appointed as  an  Inquiring  Authority,  no  difficulty  shall  arise.  But  when the Rules do not provide for it, an outsider may be  appointed  as  an  Inquiring  Authority  only  after  the  consent  of  the  employee  concerned  is  obtained  and  relaxation of the rule is obtained at appropriate level." ”

8. The same extract is quoted in the High Court order with the following  

observations (at pages 6 & 7 of the Paper Book):

4

“The appointment of Inquiry Officer who is an outsider is not  permissible as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme  Court in National High School, Madras vs. Education Tribunal  which reads as follows:

"The  principle  in  this  regard  is  that  if  the  rules  specifically  provide that  a  person not  belonging to  the  service concerned or even outsider can be appointed as  an  Inquiring  Authority,  no  difficulty  shall  arise.  But  when the Rules do not provide for it, an outsider may be  appointed  as  an  Inquiring  Authority  only  after  the  consent  of  the  employee  concerned  is  obtained  and  relaxation of the rule is obtained at appropriate level." ”

9. The above quotation is not from the decision in National High School,   

Madras.  The  decision  in  that  case  is  quite  brief  and of  no  more  than  6  

paragraphs.  In  that  case  the  teacher  of  a  recognized  private  school  was  

proceeded against on certain charges. In reply to the show cause notice by  

him, it was pleaded that the inquiry into the matter should be made by some  

retired educationists in the local area and not by the school committee. The  

school committee acceded to his request and a committee (other than the  

school committee) was constituted for holding the inquiry. The committee  

found him guilty and submitted a report to the school committee on the basis  

of which he was dismissed from service. He challenged his dismissal order  

before the Joint Director who allowed his application on the ground that the  

inquiry could only be conducted by the school committee. The view taken  

by the Joint Director was upheld by the Education Tribunal. A learned single  

5

judge of the High Court took the contrary view and held that the school  

committee must take the decision on the misconduct but the inquiry could be  

entrusted to others. On further appeal, the division bench of the High Court  

took the same view as the Joint Director; it observed that the management  

had  no  power  to  constitute  any  other  committee  to  inquire  into  the  

misconduct of teachers and the  school committee should itself conduct the  

inquiry. When the matter reached this Court, it took the only logical view  

and pointed out  that  in the facts  of the case the whole  debate was quite  

academic inasmuch as the school committee entrusted the inquiry to another  

committee  constituted  for  that  purpose  on  the  express  request  of  the  

concerned teacher. It was, therefore, not open to him to question the inquiry  

held  by  that  committee,  that  was  constituted  as  per  his  own request.  In  

paragraph 4 of the judgment, this Court observed and held as follows:

“4. … In our opinion, it is unnecessary to decide this issue since  the  appeal  could  be  conveniently  disposed  of  on  another  ground.  It  is  not  in  dispute  that  the  respondent  himself  demanded  that  the  enquiry  should  be  held  by  educationists  other than the school committee.  That request  seems to have  been  necessitated  since  he  has  made  accusations  against  the  Headmaster  of  the  School.  Accordingly  a  committee  of  outsiders  was  appointed to  hold the  enquiry.  The respondent  participated  in  the  enquiry  and  did  not  at  any  time  raise  objection  as  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  committee.  He  was,  therefore,  estopped  from  raising  the  objection  as  to  the  jurisdiction of the school committee. …”

6

10. As stated above, in National High School, Madras there is no passage  

as attributed to it in the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal and the  

High Court. Now, had this  mistake occurred only in the judgment  of the  

Tribunal, one could have ignored it as an error of citation. But its repetition  

in  the  order  of  the  High Court  points  to  only one thing,  that  the  quoted  

passage was lifted from somewhere without a proper verification from an  

approved  law  report.  We  express  our  regret  at  such  cavalier  attitude  in  

making judicial pronouncements.  

11. Coming back to the merits of the case,  we must point out that the  

issue is no longer res integra. The question of validity of appointment of a  

retired officer from a panel prepared for appointment of Inquiry Officers for  

holding  departmental  inquiry  was  examined  in  great  detail  in  a  recent  

decision of this Court in  Union of India & Ors. vs. Alok Kumar, 2010 (5)  

SCC 349. It may be clarified that the decision in Alok Kumar was rendered  

in  a  case  under  rule  9  of  the  Railway  Servants  (Discipline  and Appeal)  

Rules, 1968 and the present case arises from rule 14 (2) of the CCS (CCA)  

Rules. But it needs to be pointed out that the provisions of rule 9 (2) Railway  

Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 dealing with the appointment  

of inquiry officers are in  pari materia with rule 14 (2) of the CCS (CCA)  

7

Rules. Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968  

is as follows:

“9.  Procedure  for  imposing  major  penalties. -  (1)  No  order  imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of  sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 shall  be made except  after  an inquiry  held, as far as may be, in the manner provided in this rule and  Rule  10,  or  in  the  manner  provided  by  the  Public  Servants  (Inquiries) Act, 1850 (37 of 1850), where such inquiry is held  under that Act.

(2) Whenever  the  disciplinary  authority  is  of  the  opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth  of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against a  railway servant, it may itself inquire into, or appoint under  this  rule  or  under  the  provisions  of  the  Public  Servants  (Inquiries)  Act,  1850,  as  the  case  may  be,  [a  Board  of  Inquiry or other authority] to inquire into the truth thereof.

(3)Where a Board of Inquiry is appointed under sub-rule  (2) it shall consist of not less than two members, each of whom  shall be higher in rank than the railway servant against whom  the inquiry is being held and none of whom shall be subordinate  to the other member or members, as the case may be, of such  Board.

Explanation.-  Where  the  disciplinary  authority  itself  holds the inquiry, any reference in sub-rule (12) and in sub-rule  (14)  to  sub-rule  (25),  to  the  inquiring  authority  shall  be  construed as a reference to the disciplinary authority.”

Rule 14 (2) of the CCS Rules is reproduced herein below:

“14. Procedure for imposing major penalties.-  

(1)xxxxxxx  

(2)  Whenever  the  Disciplinary  Authority  is  of  the  opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth  

8

of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against a  Government servant, it may itself inquire into, or appoint  under  this  rule,  or  under  the  provisions  of  the  Public  Servants  (Inquiries)  Act,  1850,  as  the  case  may  be,  an  authority to inquire into the truth thereof.”

12. It is, thus, to be seen that the only difference between rule 14 (2) of  

CCS  (CCA)  Rules  and  rule  9  (3)  of  Railway  Servants  (Discipline  and  

Appeal) Rules is that in the former the words “a Board of Inquiry or” are  

not there. But that is of no significance for the issue in hand.

13. In  Alok Kumar this Court considered in great detail, the meaning of  

the word “authority” occurring in Rule 9(3) and came to find and hold that a  

retired  officer  could  also  be  vested  with  the  delegated  authority  of  the  

Disciplinary Authority (see paragraphs 26-62) to hold the inquiry. It  may  

also be noted that in Alok Kumar, this Court also considered the decision in  

Ravi Malik vs. National Film Development Corporation Ltd. (2004) 13 SCC  

427 and distinguished it by pointing out that it was in the context of Rule 23  

(b)  of  the  Service  Rules  and  Regulations,  1982  of  the  National  Film  

Development  Corporation.  In  paragraph  45  of  the  judgment,  the  Court  

observed as follows:

“45. Reliance placed by the respondents upon the judgment of  this Court in  Ravi Malik is hardly of any assistance to them.  Firstly, the facts and the rules falling for consideration before  this  Court  in  that  case  were  entirely  different.  Secondly,  the  Court  was  concerned  with  the  expression  "public  servant"  appearing in Rule 23(b) of the Service Rules and Regulations,  

9

1982 of the National Film Development Corporation. The Court  expressed the view that  "public servant" should be understood  in  its  common  parlance  and  a  retired  officer  would  not  fall  within  the  meaning  of  "public  servant",  as  by  virtue  of  his  retirement he loses the characteristics of being a public servant.  That is not the expression with which we are concerned in the  present case.  Rule 9(2) as well  as Section 3 of the Act have  used  a  very  different  expression  i.e.  "other  authority"  and  "person/persons".  In  other  words,  the  absence  of  the  words  "public servant" of the Government are conspicuous by their  very  absence.  Thus,  both  these  expressions,  even  as  per  the  dictum of the Court should be interpreted as understood in the  common parlance.”

14. In  light  of  the  discussions  made  above,  we  are  satisfied  that  the  

judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court are contrary to the correct  

legal position and therefore cannot be sustained. We, therefore, set aside the  

judgment of the Tribunal and the High Court and dismiss the respondent’s  

OA no.531 of 2004 filed before the Tribunal.   The appeal is allowed.  

15. There will be no order as to costs.  

………………………..J. (Aftab Alam)

………………………..J. (R.M. Lodha)

New Delhi August 18, 2010.

10