RAN VIJAI YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner questions the propriety of the notice issued to the petitioner for conducting an inquiry into the perceived acts of misconduct by the petitioner. The ground urged is that prior to the disciplinary authority appointing an inquiry officer, the disciplinary authority ought to form an opinion that it is necessary to conduct an inquiry into the allegation of misconduct after affording the concerned employee ah opportunity to place his version. The challenge in this case is on the ground that the charge-sheet is appended to the inquiry officer's invitation to the petitioner to participate in the inquiry. The petitioner contends that the inquiry officer could not have been appointed at all without the disciplinary authority forming an opinion that it was necessary to call for an inquiry. This opinion of the disciplinary authority, according to the petitioner, would perforce require the petitioner's version to be obtained before it is formed and, the petitioner suggests, it is imperative that such opinion be not formed merely on the basis of complaints or other facts brought to the notice of the disciplinary authority without reference to the concerned employee.

(2.) In support of such contention, the petitioner relies on an order of a Division Bench of this court passed on November 17, 2008 where, relying on the Supreme Court dicta in the judgments reported at : (1985) 3 SCC 398 and (2001) 2 SCC 330, it was held that the nomination of an inquiry officer without seeking any explanation from the employee prior to the nomination being made was liable to be set aside. The petitioner says that such order has not been interfered with by the Supreme Court as the petition for special leave to appeal therefrom was dismissed on December 18, 2009.

(3.) Since the special leave petition was merely dismissed, it would not amount to the order of the Division Bench having been affirmed. In any event, the rules relevant for the matter are not quoted in the Division Bench order and it must be presumed that the rules required a special procedure to be followed that warranted the order being made.