Uoi And Ors vs P Sasi
2012 Latest Caselaw 5741 Del

             THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                           Judgment delivered on : 25.09.2012


+       W.P.(C) 8705/2010


UOI AND ORS                                              ... Petitioners


                                       versus


P SASI                                                   ... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners          : Mr Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr D.S. Mahendru and Mr
                               Kunal Kahol
For the Respondent           : Mr Bharat Bhushan


CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

                                JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. (ORAL)

1. The only point for consideration in this writ petition is whether the

Disciplinary Authority by virtue of his order dated 13.02.2004 has directed

a 'further' inquiry or a de novo inquiry? In case the direction is construed

to be a mere direction for a further inquiry, it would be well within the its

power of the Disciplinary Authority under Rule 15(1) of the CCS (CCA)

Rules, 1965. However, if it is understood that the direction given by the

Disciplinary Authority in his order dated 13.02.2004 meant a de novo

inquiry, the same would, therefore, not be sustainable in law as that would

amount to double jeopardy, inasmuch as, there cannot be two enquiries in

respect of the very same state of affairs.

2. The Tribunal by virtue of the impugned order dated 21.10.2010

passed in O.A. No.1497/2009 has come to the conclusion that the direction

given by the Disciplinary Authority in the said order dated 13.02.2004 was

for a de novo inquiry, which is not permitted in law and, therefore, the

Tribunal set aside the proceedings pursuant thereto which included the

punishment order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as confirmed by the

Appellate Authority.

3. We may first of all refer to the order dated 13.02.2004. The said

order is the bone of contention between the parties and, therefore, it would

be appropriate for us to set it out in full:-

"A/27/639/CAO/DD/01 Government of India Ministry of Defence O/o the JS (Trg) & CAO E-Block, Dalhausie Road New Delhi-110 011

Dated the 13 Feb 2004

ORDER

WHEREAS Shri Trilochan Rout, Deputy Director was appointed as the Inquiring Authority to enquire into the charges framed against Shri P. Sasi, Asstt (under Suspension) vide order No.A/27639/CAO/DD/01 dated 01.03.2002.

AND WHEREAS the said Inquiring Authority conducted the inquiry and submitted his report dated 17 Sep 2003. In the report Article-I of the charge has been proved only to the extent that he has shown lack of devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt servant. The charge relating to lack of integrity has not been proved. While the 2nd Article has not been proved at all.

AND WHEREAS it is observed that the prime witness Shri Samuel Mathew whose presence was crucial to the case, failed to appear before the inquiry despite invoking Departmental Inquiry Act to ensure his attendance. However, it is no where mentioned in the inquiry report that he refused to attend the inquiry. He has simply not appeared.

NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned hereby remits the report back to IO under Rule 15 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 for further inquiry with a view to have evidence of Shri Samuel Mathew, prosecution witness no.2 by way of his deposition before inquiry so that ends of natural justice are met.

                                                  (P.K. Rastogi)
                                           Joint Secretary (Training) &
                                           Chief Administrative Officer

        Shri Trilochan Rout,      Alongwith documents received vide your
        Deputy Director           letter dated 17 Sep 2003.
        (Inquiring Authority)
        Registrar, CAT, Cuttak (Orissa)




         Copy to

        1. Shri P Sasi, Asstt           2. Shri A.K. Toor,
           (Under Suspension)              Asstt Registrar (Presenting
           583, Sector-5                   Officer)
           RK Puram, New Delhi-22          C/o Ravi & Beas Waters
                                           Tribunal, East Block-7,
                                           Level-II, R.K. Puram,
                                           New Delhi-110066
        (Suresh Kumar)
        Administrative Officer/Legal
        O/o JS (Trg.) & CAO
        Ministry of Defence 'E' Block
        DHQ PO New Delhi-110011"

4. The entire focus of arguments has been on the third recital in the

above order. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the reason

for directing a further inquiry was that the prime witness Mr Samuel

Mathew had not been examined. Despite efforts having been made by the

Inquiry Officer, the said witness had not appeared. Therefore, according to

the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was open to the Disciplinary

Authority to direct the Inquiry Officer to conduct a further inquiry by

requiring the attendance of the said crucial witness (Mr Samuel Mathew).

He submitted that this did not entail a de novo inquiry, inasmuch as, the

other witnesses and evidence on record remained the same.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted

that this very direction given by the Disciplinary Authority required the

conduct of a de novo inquiry. He also sought to raise the issue of prejudice

that was caused to him by the non-supply of the earlier so-called inquiry

report dated 17.09.2003. According to him, unless that report was supplied

to him, the respondent would not know as to whether the said witness,

namely, Mr Samuel Mathew had refused to attend the inquiry or whether he

had simply not appeared. He submitted that in case the said witness had

refused to attend the inquiry then a different set of conclusions would have

been arrived at from if the witness had simply not appeared. Hence, as long

as the report dated 17.09.2003 was not made available to the respondent; he

could not challenge the said order effectively.

6. At the outset we may point out that the contention of the learned

counsel for the respondent is not borne out from the record inasmuch as the

order sheet of the earlier part of the inquiry proceedings dated 18.06.2003

clearly brings out the fact that the notices/summons sent to the said Mr

Samuel Mathew had been received by him and that a person had, in fact,

called up the Inquiry Officer on 12.06.2003 stating that he was Samuel

Mathew and that he had informed that he was no longer working with

Tehelka.com and since he had received the notice from the Inquiry Officer

in the second week of June, 2003, he wanted to know as to what was

required of him at that stage. That person left his mobile number

(9810903324) as his contact number, if required. It appears that this was

conveyed to the Presenting Officer for bringing the same to the notice of

the Disciplinary Authority. From the said order sheet it is also apparent

that the Presenting Officer had informed the Inquiry Officer that he had

tried to contact Mr. Samuel Mathew on the said number to check his

availability but he did not receive any response from the said mobile

number. It is further revealed from the order sheet dated 18.06.2003 that

the then Inquiry Officer had observed that Mr Samuel Mathew was not

interested to depose as a witness before the inquiry.

7. We can straightaway say that this conclusion is not borne out from

the facts as indicated in the order sheet dated 18.06.2003. Paragraphs 2 and

3 of the said order sheet are relevant for this purpose and the same are

reproduced below:-

"2. The IO received a telephone call on 12 Jun 2003 at about 1330 hrs from a person claiming to be Shri Mathew Samuel. He informed that he was no more working with the Tehlka.com and had received the notice of the IO in second week of June 2003 and wanted to know what he was required to do at this stage. He had left his Mobile No.98109 03324 for the contact, if required. The development was conveyed to the PO for

bringing it to the knowledge of disciplinary authority. The PO has informed that he tried to contact Shri Mathew Samuel on this number to check his availability before making a submission to the IO for calling him as the Prosecution Witness. However, there was no response from the Mobile No.98109 03324. The DA submits that the case of the disciplinary authority has already been closed and the CO has opened his defence by making Shri Narender Singh examined as Defence Witness. It will be procedurally irregular if the Prosecution Witness is allowed to depose at this stage.

3. In the considered view of the IO, Shri Mathew Samuel has been given notices five times directly and two times through the Court of the Hon'ble District Judge. The notice dated 30 Apr 2003 was received from the Process Server on 05 May 2003 by one Shri Satbir Singh after consulting Shri Mathew. In that event, it cannot be accepted that Shri Mathew had no knowledge about the requirement to attend the inquiry. Moreover, there is no response from the Mobile Number given by Shri Mathew. The IO is convinced that Shri Mathew is not interested to depose as a witness before the inquiry."

8. It is an admitted position that all notices that were sent by the Inquiry

Officer to Mr Samuel Mathew were prior to his telephone call on

12.06.2003. He had left his mobile number for being contacted in case he

is required. After that for whatever reason the said Mr Samuel Mathew was

not contacted and, therefore, it cannot be said that he had refused to appear

in the proceedings. In this context, we may say that the observation of the

Disciplinary Authority in the order dated 13.02.2004 to the effect that Mr

Samuel Mathew had simply not appeared, is correct. The contrary

contention of the learned counsel for the respondent to the effect that Mr

Samuel Mathew had refused to appear, is not tenable and is not supported

by the material on record.

9. The facts of this case are that the respondent was proceeded against

for his alleged involvement in the Tehelka disclosure case. A charge sheet

was issued to him on 04.12.2001 containing two articles of charge:-

"(i) He came in contact with Sh Samuel Mathew of Tehelka.com who was impersonating as an agent for a fake firm viz. West-End and assisting the firm in this endeavour of getting an evaluation letter issued for supply of Army equipments for consideration in kind and money.

(ii) He passed on official information and documents to persons he was not authorized to communicate."

10. An inquiry was ordered in the matter. We have already stated that

Mr Samuel Mathew had allegedly been interacting with the respondent (Mr

P. Sasi) during the Tehelka case as an agent for M/s West-End, which was a

dummy firm of Tehelka.com, in order to obtain evaluation letters from

Army Headquarters. It was alleged that the said Mr Samuel Mathew had

induced the said respondent on consideration of money and promise of

employment to his family members. It is in this backdrop that the evidence

of Mr Samuel Mathew was a key to the inquiry. The Inquiry Officer

submitted a report dated 17.09.2003 to the Disciplinary Authority. Of

course, the said report was submitted without consideration of the key

evidence of Mr Samuel Mathew in the circumstances which we have

already indicated above. As per the report dated 17.09.2003, Article-I of

the charges was partially proved and Article-II had been found to be not

proved.

11. It is thereafter that the Disciplinary Authority remitted the matter to

the Inquiry Officer by virtue of the said order dated 13.02.2004 under the

provisions of Rule 15(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for further inquiry

with a view to have the evidence of Mr Samuel Mathew (PW-2).

Thereafter, the new Inquiry Officer, Mr A. Sinha, conducted the inquiry in

which the said Mr Samuel Mathew appeared and gave his evidence. In

fact, the said evidence of Mr Samuel Mathew was recorded on six separate

dates ranging from 24.06.2005 to 13.10.2005. On five out of the six

occasions, the said witness had been cross-examined by the respondent

himself. Thereafter, the said Mr Sinha, the Inquiry Officer, submitted his

inquiry report on 26.12.2006 wherein it was held that Article-I of the

charge was proved and that Article-II of the charge was partially proved.

12. Since the controversy in the present matter is with regard to the

question as to whether the inquiry conducted by the said Inquiry Officer

(Mr A. Sinha) was a de novo inquiry or a further inquiry, it would be

necessary to note the opening paragraphs of the inquiry report. The same

reads as under:-

" The undersigned was appointed as Inquiry Officer by JS (Trg) & CAO vide Order No.A/27639/CAO/DD/01 dated 16 Jun 2004 with a view to record evidence of Shri Mathew Samuel, PW-2 by way of his deposition in the Departmental Inquiry against Shri P Sasi, Asstt. (Under Suspension), MGO Branch. The Inquiry Report dated 17 Sep 2003 submitted by the previous Inquiry Officer Shri Trilochan Rout had been remitted back to the IO by the Disciplinary Authority under Rule 15 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 for further inquiry vide Order No.A/27639/CAO/DD/01 dated 13 Feb 2004, so that ends of natural justice are met. The case on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority was presented by Shri AK Toor, SO. Shri P Sasi, the Charged Officer participated in the Inquiry and personally presented his Defence before the undersigned.

2. I have completed the inquiry and on the basis of documentary and oral evidence produced before me and the previous IO Shri Trilochan Rout, I am submitting the Inquiry Report."

13. From the above, it would be clear that purpose of remitting the

matter to the Inquiry Officer was only to record the evidence of Mr Samuel

Mathew (PW-2) inasmuch as the same had not been done at the earlier

stage. In our view, even the Inquiry Officer construed the direction given

by the Disciplinary Authority on 13.02.2004 to be a direction for further

inquiry and not for a de novo inquiry. This can be noticed from the two

paragraphs extracted above which clearly indicate that the said Inquiry

Officer (Mr A. Sinha) completed the inquiry on the basis of the

documentary or oral evidence produced before him as also before the

previous Inquiry Officer (Mr Trilochan Rout). It is on that basis that the

inquiry report dated 26.12.2006 was submitted to the Disciplinary

Authority.

14. We may also point out that in total there were four witnesses who

were examined. PW-1 was one Mr Anirudh Bahl, Editor Investigations of

Tehelka.com, who had already been examined by the earlier Inquiry

Officer; PW-2 was Mr Samuel Mathew who was to be examined in the

further inquiry conducted by Mr Sinha. DW-1 Mr Narendra Singh had

been examined before the earlier Inquiry Officer (Mr Trilochan Rout).

However, DW-2 Mr Gopal K. Nair was not available earlier and had not

been examined before the first Inquiry Officer. As such, he was examined

subsequently before the second Inquiry Officer, after the matter had been

remitted for further inquiry by the Disciplinary Authority by virtue of his

order dated 13.02.2004. Therefore, as per the mandate given to Mr A.

Sinha, the second Inquiry Officer, he completed the inquiry by, inter alia,

examining the key witness PW-2 Mr Samuel Mathew. Opportunity was

given to the charged officer to cross-examine Mr Samuel Mathew as is

evident from the fact that he was so cross-examined on five separate dates.

15. Based on the findings of the Inquiry Officer, recorded in the report

dated 26.12.2006, the Disciplinary Authority, upon consideration of all the

material placed before it, imposed a penalty of dismissal of service by

virtue of his order dated 10.10.2007.

16. The Appellate Authority concurred with the Disciplinary Authority

by virtue of his order dated 07.04.2008. Being aggrieved thereby, O.A.

No.1497/2009 was filed by the respondent wherein the impugned order

dated 21.10.2010 has been passed.

17. Rule 15(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 reads as under:-

"15. Action on the inquiry report. - (1) The Disciplinary authority, if it is not itself the inquiring authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing remit the case to the inquiring authority for further inquiry and report and the inquiring authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of Rule 14, as far as may be."

18. A plain reading of the said Rule clearly indicates that the

Disciplinary Authority has the power to remit the case to the inquiry

authority for further inquiry and report. However, that power has to be

exercised only after the Disciplinary Authority records the reasons in

writing. Generally speaking, the ambit of the power for further inquiry has

been explained by the Supreme Court in K.R. Deb vs. Collector, Central

Excise, Shillong : AIR 1971 SC 1450, though, in the context of the earlier

CCS (CCA) Rules, 1957. However, the general principles would apply.

The observations of the Supreme Court in this connection are as under:-

"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....."

19. What is of importance is that the Supreme Court observed that where

there has not been a proper inquiry because some serious defect has crept in

the inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority may ask the Inquiry Officer to

record further evidence. Such a direction may also be given, as observed

by the Supreme Court, where some important witnesses were not available

at the time of inquiry or were not examined for some other reason.

20. In the present case, it is evident that Mr Samuel Mathew had not

been examined by the first Inquiry Officer. It is an admitted position that

Mr Samuel Mathew is a key witness in this case. We have also noted from

the order sheet of 18.06.2003 of the first Inquiry Officer that Mr Samuel

Mathew had indeed contacted the Inquiry Officer and had told him his

contact number and had also indicated that he may be informed if he was

required. After that, the said Mr Samuel Mathew had not been contacted,

for whatever reason, as a result of which it can be safely inferred that Mr

Samuel Mathew did not at all know as to whether he was to appear before

the Inquiry Officer. Therefore, it cannot be said that Mr Samuel Mathew

had refused to appear before the first Inquiry Officer. The Disciplinary

Authority, as we have already pointed out above, was right in recording that

it was simply a case that Mr Samuel Mathew had not appeared. In order to

remove this lacuna/defect in the proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority

had directed further inquiry for recording the evidence of Mr Samuel

Mathew. It so happened that in the subsequent round Mr Samuel Mathew

did appear and his evidence was recorded. From this fact also it would be

clear that there could be no inference that Mr Samuel Mathew was not

willing to appear even in the first round or had refused to do so.

21. We may also point out that because of the further inquiry directed by

the Disciplinary Authority, the charged officer also got an opportunity to

produce his own witness, namely, DW-2 Mr Gopal K. Nair, who was not

available in the earlier round. Therefore, all that the second Inquiry Officer

(Mr A. Sinha) had done was to continue the inquiry proceedings further. In

our view, he did not conduct any inquiry de novo and it was merely a

continuation of the earlier proceedings inasmuch as the evidence of PW-2

Mr Samuel Mathew and that of DW-2 i.e., Mr Gopal K. Nair was recorded.

The evidence already on record in the first round was also taken into

consideration by Mr A. Sinha while submitting his report dated 26.12.2006.

22. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed before us three

decisions of the Supreme Court which, according to him, were in support of

his case:-

(i) Kanailal Bera vs. Union of India and Others : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 63.

(ii) Union of India vs. K.D. Pandey and Another : (2002) 10 SCC 471.

(iii) Union of India vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 304.

23. We may say straightaway that none of these decisions come to the

aid of the learned counsel for the respondent. In Kanailal Bera (supra)

itself it has been observed by the Supreme Court that in a given situation

further evidences may be directed to be adduced but the same would not

mean that despite holding a delinquent officer to be partially guilty of the

charges leveled against him 'another inquiry' could be directed to be

initiated on the same charges which could not be proved in the first inquiry.

The present case is one of 'further evidence' and not of 'another inquiry'.

We have already noted that Mr Samuel Mathew had not been examined in

the earlier round at all. It is only to complete this part of the inquiry that

the further inquiry was directed. It was definitely not a case of 'another'

inquiry or a de novo inquiry. Therefore, the decision in Kanailal Bera

(supra) would be of no help to the respondent.

24. Insofar as the decision in K.D. Pandey (supra) is concerned, it is

clearly distinguishable inasmuch as in that case the Tribunal as well as the

High Court were of the view that on the same material a fresh information

had been furnished and, therefore, it was not a case of further inquiry. In

the present case, the report of the Inquiry Officer (Mr A. Sinha) is not based

on the same material. In fact, the report of Mr Trilochan Rout was rendered

without the benefit of the evidence of Mr Samuel Mathew (PW-2).

Therefore, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that the second report

was on the same material as the first report. The present case, as we have

already indicated above, is a clear case of further inquiry and not of a

second inquiry.

25. Now we deal with the third decision of the Supreme Court in the case

of Kunisetty Satyanarayana (supra) which also talks about a 'second' full-

fledged inquiry and not of a further inquiry. It is obvious that if a second

full-fledged inquiry ordered it would amount to double jeopardy but, this is

not the case here.

26. In view of the foregoing discussion, the inquiry conducted by Mr

Sinha cannot be regarded as a de novo inquiry. It was merely a 'further'

inquiry. Consequently, the impugned order of the Tribunal cannot be

sustained. The same is set aside.

27. We note from paragraph 11 of the impugned order that the Tribunal

had examined the case only from the standpoint of whether the direction

given on 13.02.2004 by the Disciplinary Authority was for a further inquiry

or for a de novo inquiry. It is further noticed that the other grounds were

not examined by the Tribunal and, in fact the Tribunal has stated in

paragraph 11 of the impugned order that the other grounds are left open.

Consequently, for considering the other grounds, if any, in O.A., the matter

is remitted to the Tribunal. In the first instance the parties shall appear

before the Tribunal on 05.11.2012.

28. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no

order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J

SEPTEMBER 25 , 2012 dn