VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III

DECISION - 287
601
Officer submitted a report on 8-8-75 to the disciplinary authority and
this report too was returned to the Inquiry Officer for rectification on
12-8-75 and it was received back by the disciplinary authority on 22-
8-75.
The High Court held that the power to remit a case conferred
on the disciplinary authority under rule 15(1) of the Central Civil
Services (CCA) Rules is not to be exercised as a matter of course or
at the fancy of the disciplinary authority. This power can be exercised
only in exceptional cases where further inquiry is considered
necessary in the interest of justice and that also for reasons to be
recorded. Further inquiry within the contemplation of sub-rule (1) of
rule 15 means an inquiry falling within the purview of rule 14.
In the instant case, the reasons which weighed with the
disciplinary authority in remitting the case time and again to the Inquiry
Officer are not traceable from the available record. The presumption,
therefore, is that no such reasons were recorded by the disciplinary
authority. If it was so, the orders of the disciplinary authority remitting
the case to the Inquiry Officer from time to time were void and further
proceedings conducted by the Inquiry Officer after he submitted his
first report on 28-9-74 are all vitiated.
Assuming that the Disciplinary Authority recorded such
reasons in support of its various orders remitting the case to the
Inquiry Officer and such orders cannot be called bad for want of
reasons, the case could be remitted only for the limited purpose of
conducting further inquiry by the Inquiry Officer in accordance with
the provisions of rule 14. The purpose of this further inquiry could be
to record statement of witnesses included in the list of witnesses
attached with the memorandum of charge-sheet who for some
reasons could not be examined earlier or to remove some ambiguity
in the evidence of such witnesses or to remove some other procedural
defect in the inquiry. In any case, further inquiry could not be in
violation of the procedure laid down in rule 14. The High Court allowed
the writ petition and quashed the order of dismissal from service.