KAMAL KISHORE BANSAL Vs. M.P .E.B.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have found much merit in the contention of Shri Jain that it is the clear mandate of the Apex Court that Rule 15 does not contemplate setting aside previous inquiries on the ground that the report of the Inquiry Officer does not appeal to the Disciplinary Authority. Indeed, there being requirement of giving reasons clearly contemplated in Rule 15 when a "further enquiry" is ordered, their Lordships took the view that there may be cases when some serious defect had crept into the inquiry or some important witnesses were not available at the time of the inquiry or for some other reasons when the Inquiry Officer who had conducted the inquiry is to record further evidence and then his report so submitted is to be considered by the Disciplinary Authority. It has also been held that even without doing so the Disciplinary Authority can reconsider the evidence itself and come to it own conclusion under Rule 9, when 'further inquiry' is not ordered and the report of the Inquiry Officer is not accepted. There is, however, no warrant in law as pointed out by their Lordships for appointing another Inquiry Officer for the purpose of re -examination for re -inquiring the whole charges in terms of Rule 15 and that is what is done in this case. AIR 1971 SC 1447 followed. Petition disposed of.