Delhi High Court
Baiju G vs Dttdc on 26 March, 2021
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 26th March, 2021
+ LPA 134/2021
BAIJU G. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Shivendra Singh, Adv.
Versus
DELHI TOURISM AND TRANSPORTATION
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
& ANR .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Anisha Upadhyay, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
CM No.12231/2021 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant Rules.
2. The application is disposed of.
LPA 134/2021 & CM No. 12230/2021 (for ad-interim ex-parte stay)
3. This intra court appeal impugns the order dated 15 th March, 2021
disposing of W.P.(C) No.3328/2021 preferred by the appellant impugning
the revival of inquiry in a disciplinary proceeding against the appellant and
impugning the orders dated 1st February, 2021 and 15th February, 2021 of
the Inquiry Authority.
4. The Single Judge, in the impugned order has
found/observed/reasoned, that (i) the appellant was working as a Junior
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned
By:MEENAKSHI PANT
Signing Date:05.04.2021
18:20:04
Driver in the respondent no.1 Delhi Tourism and Transportation
Development Corporation Limited (DTTDC); (ii) departmental proceedings
were initiated against the appellant in terms of Memorandum dated 26th
May, 2017 and one Mr. Anudeep Bedi, Assistant Manager, appointed as the
Inquiry Officer; (iii) the Inquiry Officer concluded the inquiry proceedings
and reserved report therein on 11th June, 2019; (iv) the Inquiry Officer
submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority, which on consideration
of the same found an infirmity in the conduct of the inquiry since the
Inquiry Officer had not considered the view of the witnesses / complainant
as well as the deposition of the witnesses who deposed in the inquiry and
deemed it appropriate to appoint another Inquiry Officer and passed an
order dated 24th November, 2020, in exercise of powers under Rule 15 of
the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965
[CCS(CCA) Rules], remitting the matter to the Inquiry Officer; (v) on 12th
February, 2021 the appellant was informed that Sh. Ajit Srivastava, retired
IAS officer had been appointed as the Inquiring Authority and the inquiry
was next scheduled on 15th February, 2021; and, (vi) on 15th February,
2021, the new Inquiry Officer posted the matter to 17th March, 2021.
5. Observing / recording as aforesaid, the Single Judge has disposed of
the writ petition preferred by the appellant, finding no error in the decision
of the Disciplinary Authority to remit the inquiry to another Inquiry Officer
but directing the new Inquiry Officer to submit the report within six
months.
6. The counsel for the appellant, before us has contended that law does
not permit substitution of the Inquiry Officer and the impugned judgment of
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned
By:MEENAKSHI PANT
Signing Date:05.04.2021
18:20:04
the Single Judge is contrary to the binding dicta of the Division Bench in
Union of India Vs. S.K. Verma 2018 SCC OnLine Del. 7760.
7. However a perusal of the said judgment, particularly paragraphs 14
and 16 to which attention is drawn, does not show the same as laying down
any such absolute proposition. In the facts of that case, the Division Bench
observed that no reasons had been given for substitution of the Inquiry
Officer and in the absence thereof the Inquiry Officer could not be
substituted.
8. The counsel for the appellant then contends that no reason exists in
the present case also.
9. However perusal of the order dated 24th November, 2020 of the
Disciplinary Authority in the present case shows the Disciplinary Authority
to have reasoned, that (i) the conduct of the inquiry by the earlier Inquiry
Officer was not satisfactory because the Inquiry Officer had not considered
the confirmation of witnesses / complainant as well as the depositions of all
the witnesses who deposed against the integrity and conduct of the
petitioner; and, (ii) the petitioner, as per the said statements / depositions,
tarnished the goodwill and image of Delhi Tourism, by misbehaving with
an international tourist including lady and thus the inquiry needed to be
remitted to a new Inquiry Authority.
10. The Division Bench, in S.K. Verma supra has relied on K.R. Deb Vs.
Collector, Central Excise, Shillong (1971) 2 SCC 102, to hold that the
Disciplinary Authority, though can hold a further inquiry but not a de novo
inquiry. The counsel for the petitioner then contends that the Disciplinary
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned
By:MEENAKSHI PANT
Signing Date:05.04.2021
18:20:04
Authority, vide order dated 24th November, 2020, has ordered inquiry afresh
and which is not permissible.
11. The counsel for the respondents draws our attention to the last
paragraph of the order dated 24th November, 2020, where the direction is
for inquiry under Rule 14(2) read with sub-rule (22) of the CCS(CCA)
Rules and which provide for further inquiry and not fresh inquiry. It is
stated that the new Inquiry Officer is not proceeding afresh and the
proceedings of the earlier inquiry would constitute a part of the Inquiry
Report by the new Inquiry Officer. It is also contended that the appellant,
in this appeal is attempting to expand the scope of the matter beyond that in
the writ petition.
12. No merit is found in the appeal.
Dismissed.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
AMIT BANSAL, J
MARCH 26, 2021
'gsr'..
(corrected & released on 5th April, 2021)
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned
By:MEENAKSHI PANT
Signing Date:05.04.2021
18:20:04
