The Supreme Court in the case Union of India v. Jagdish Chandra Sethy observed and has held that the disciplinary authority under the Central Civil Service Rules is empowered to appoint a retired employee as an inquiry authority and it is not necessary that the inquiry officer needs to be a public servant.
The bench comprising of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Bela M Trivedi in the case observed while hearing an appeal against the judgement of the Orissa High Court and has relied on the case Ravi Malik v. National Film Development Corporation wherein it was held that the retired public servant could not have been appointed as an inquiry officer
The said court distinguished it and has stated that the same would not be applicable in the present case. The court stated that in this case the Rule 23(b) of Service Regulations,1982 of NFDC was being applicable which specifically stated that the disciplinary authority may appoint the ‘public servant’ to inquire into the misconduct of an employee. Whereas in the said case, the Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services, 1965 would apply where disciplinary authority may appoint an ‘authority’ in order to inquire into the misconduct of a govt employee.
Therefore, it has been held by the said court that the disciplinary authority is empowered to appoint a retired employee as an inquiry authority and it being not necessary that the inquiry officer needs to be the public servant.
The said court stated that this court founds no fault as the inquiry officer was not a public servant, but a retired office.
The court also referred to the case Union of India v. PC Ramakrishnnaya, wherein the reference precedent set in Alok Kumar case.
Further, it has also been noted by the said court in the case of Alok Kumar wherein the said court had made it clear that Rule 9(3) used the word ‘other authority’ and not ‘public servant’ who may conduct an inquiry.
Accordingly, the court allowed the appeal and has set aside the High Court judgement wherein it upheld the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack bench.Facts of the Case:
The respondent named Jagdish Chandra Sethy had assailed the order of disciplinary authority before Central Administrative Tribunal at Cuttack. However,
It has been contended by him before the court that the authority had not recorded specific reasons why a retired government servant was appointed to act as an inquiry officer. Thus, the tribunal agreed and has passed an order in his Favor. Therefore, the applicant approached the High Court again to upheld the order of the tribunal.
Further, the appellant approached the Supreme Court challenging the impugned judgement of High Court.
