VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 449
847
but the disciplinary authority did not agree and remanded the case
for further inquiry to a new Inquiry Officer as the former one was not
capable to hold inquiry and was also transferred.
The Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi held that the
order of the disciplinary authority for change of the Inquiry Officer
and remanding the case for further inquiry, cannot be faulted. The
Tribunal also held that the facts in the present case are entirely
different from the case of K.R. Deb vs. Collector, Central Excise,
Shillong, AIR 1971 SC 1447, and that the order of the disciplinary
authority made it clear why it had disagreed with the findings of the
Inquiry Officer and it was not a de novo inquiry but a further inquiry
which was being ordered and the same was entrusted to another
Inquiry Officer as the earlier one was found not capable of conducting
the inquiry properly and he having been transferred out of the
Department. On facts there are no materials to conclude that the
disciplinary authority was determined to get some Inquiry Officer to
report against the applicant.
(449)
Fresh inquiry / De novo inquiry
Appointment of another Inquiry Officer to conduct
the inquiry de novo, where rules provided for it,
upheld on the facts of the case.
Shiv Chowdhary (Smt.) vs. State of Rajasthan,
1998(6) SLR RAJ 701
The petitioner was served with a charge sheet that as warden
of the hostel in the Government College for Physical Education
hatched a conspiracy for exploiting some girl students sexually.
Regular inquiry was held and the disciplinary authority not being
satisfied with the inquiry report passed an order directing to hold the
inquiry de novo. Rule 16.9 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA)