J.C.S. Rawat, J.@mdashThis writ petition has been filed for setting aside the enquiry report dated 29.6.04 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition); the punishment order (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) and the appellate order rejecting the appeal (Anexure-7 to the writ petition). It has also been prayed that the Petitioner may be exonerated from the charges levelled against him with all consequential benefits pursuant to the enquiry report dated 4.5.2004 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition).
2. The Petitioner, an ASI of Police, while posted as Jail Watcher at Gumla, was suspended by the Superintendent of Police, Ranchi on the allegation of misconduct as well as absence from the duty from his place of posting. The enquiry was conducted against the Petitioner and after framing the charges, the first Inquiry Officer, Jharia Kujur submitted his report exonerating the Petitioner from the charges. When the disciplinary authority received the report in respect of the proceedings, he further appointed the 2nd Enquiry Officer, Sri Nageshwar Singh, Inspector of Police, to conduct the further enquiry. After the perusal of the evidence, he submitted his report and found the Petitioner guilty. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order awarding the punishment to the Petitioner. The Petitioner preferred the appeal, which was rejected. Hence, this writ petition has been preferred by the Petitioner.
3. The said writ petition has been contested by the Respondent authorities and it is alleged in the counter affidavit that when the disciplinary authority finds that there is sufficient evidence against the delinquent employee viz. the Petitioner, another second Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry can be appointed. It is further alleged that the second conducting Enquiry Officer, the Inspector of Police, Spl. Branch, Sri Nageshwar Singh conducted the enquiry and he did not re-examine the witnesses or recorded the fresh evidence and he appraised the evidence recorded by the 1st Enquiry Officer, he submitted his report holding the Petitioner guilty for the charges levelled against him. Consequent upon the report submitted by the 2nd Enquiry Officer, the Respondent further alleged that the Petitioner has been rightly punished and he sought the dismissal of the writ petition.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The moot question for disposal of the writ petition arises whether the disciplinary authority without disagreeing with the report of the 1st Enquiry Officer in the Departmental Proceeding can appoint another conducing Enquiry Officer for submitting another enquiry report on the basis of the same evidence, which has already been recorded by the first Enquiry Officer.
6. The learned Counsel contended that the disciplinary authority has ample power to disagree with the report of the 1st Enquiry Officer and if he finds the Petitioner guilty, the said authority can after recording his reasons differing with first Inquiry Officer and can award the punishment in accordance with law. He further submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has no power to delegate his power to substitute the findings of guilt to another person. He further contended that the 2nd enquiry report and the punishment order are liable to be quashed only on that ground.
7. Learned Counsel appearing for the State refuted the contention and contended that the 2nd Enquiry Officer has submitted his report after the punishment made by the disciplinary authority and the report can be looked into and the disciplinary authority can pass a suitable order.
8. It is settled proposition of law that if the Enquiry Officer submits a report exonerating the delinquent, the disciplinary authority has ample power to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and may substitute its own findings of guilt in place of the findings of the enquiry officer and he should be noticed for the said findings and thereafter show cause notice ought to be served and thereafter punishment order can be passed. It is not known to law if the first Enquiry Officer has exonerated the delinquent, the Disciplinary Authority delegating his power can appoint the 2nd Conducing Enquiry Officer to Enquiry Officer to appreciate the evidence which has already been recorded by the 1st Enquiry Officer and thereafter, to hold the delinquent guilty. The matter came up before the Constitution Bench of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the Case of
13. It seems to us that Rule 15, on the face of it, really provides for one inquiry but it may be possible if in a particular case there has been no proper enquiry because some serious defect has crept into the inquiry or some important witnesses were not available at the time of the inquiry or were not examined for some other reason, the Disciplinary Authority may ask the Inquiry Officer to record further evidence. But there is no provision in rule 15 for completely setting aside previous inquiries on the ground that the report of the Inquiring Officer or Officers does not appeal to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority has enough powers to reconsider the evidence itself and come to its own conclusion under Rule 9.
9. The similar matter also came for consideration before this Court in the case of reported in 2002 (2) JLJR 299 Tribeni Prasad v. The Chairman-cum Managing Director CCL and Ors. in which the learned Single Judge has observed that it is open to a disciplinary authority to disagree or differ with the finding of the Enquiry Officer but in such case, it will give ground of difference and after notice to the charged employee, the disciplinary authority may pass appropriate order in accordance with law. However, it is not open to disciplinary authority to appoint another Enquiry Officer to conduct fresh enquiry.
10. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority has appointed a fresh Conducing Inquiry Officer only to re-apprise the evidence, which has already been recorded by the first Enquiry Officer and the second Enquiry Officer had given a different findings than the previous one holding the Petitioner guilty for the misconduct and thereafter the punishment order has been passed. Thus the order of punishment and subsequently, the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority are liable to be quashed.
11. In view of the above, orders dated 6.8.04 (Annexure-5) and the appellate order dated 30.11.04, rejecting the appeal (Annexure-7) are hereby quashed and this writ petition is allowed.
12. It is further made clear that the disciplinary authority, if he desires so, can proceed with the inquiry from the stage the 1st Enquiry Officer submitted its report exonerating the delinquent and pass a suitable order in accordance with law.
13. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
