UNION OF INDIA Vs. JAGDISH CHANDRA SETHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In our opinion, the impugned Judgment/Order of the High Court dtd. 7/1/2010, upholding the decision/findings of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack dtd. 8/2/2008 passed in O.A. No.828 of 2005, is erroneous and unsustainable.

(2.) The impugned Judgment relies upon the decision of this Court in Ravi Malik v. National Film Development Corporation Limited and ors., 2004 (13) SCC 427 to hold that a retired Public Servant could not have been appointed as an Inquiry Officer. However, the aforesaid decision is founded on the language of Rule 23(b) of the Services Rules and Regulations, 1982 of the National Film Development Corporation Limited, which specifically stipulates that the Disciplinary Authority may inquire or appoint any Public Servant to inquire into the truth of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against an Employee. Therefore, a retired Employee cannot be appointed as an Inquiry Authority.

(3.) However, in the present case, the position of the rule is different, as Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965[For Short "CCS (CCA) Rules"] is applicable. The Rule 14(2) states that the Disciplinary Authority may itself inquire into or under this rule or under provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, appoint an authority to inquire into the truth of the imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against a Government Servant. 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.