'Reasons' To Remit Matter For Fresh Inquiry Need To Be 'Meaningful And Self Speaking', Can't Be Left To Imagination, Delhi High Court

Background

The Respondent before the Court is a 1990 batch IAS Officer belonging to the Haryana Cadre. On 30.03.2005, a chargesheet was issued against him under Rule 8 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969.

He had two articles of charge against him. As per the chargesheet, he had received a CDMA mobile phone from a person named Mr. Dharambir Khattar on 28.02.2003 and had opened an unauthorised discussion related to the Delhi Development Authority with Mr. Khattar regarding official matters. It is pertinent to mention that he was posted in the Delhi Development Authority at that point.

On replying to the Chargesheet, the Disciplinary Authority being unsatisfied with the reply, appointed an Inquiry Officer to hold inquiry. An Inquiry Report was supplied by the Officer on 13 May 2011. As per the report, the first allegation was partly proved, however, the allegation of holding unauthorised discussions regarding official matters with Mr. Khattar was not proved.

On 26 July 2012, the Central Vigilance Commission recommended dropping of the charges against the respondent, without affecting the criminal case pending against him.

The Respondent replied to the Inquiry Report on 25 October 2012. Later, on 23 December 2016, the matter was remitted to the Inquiry Officer for further Inquiry under Rule 9(1) of the AIS (D & A) Rules. The first inquiry was vitiated on the ground that a 'crucial piece of evidence' that was the material reason for the charges was not provided during the Inquiry.

Aggrieved by the Order dated 23 December 2016, directing fresh Inquiry to expedite Disciplinary Proceedings, the Respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal.

It was submitted by the Counsel for the Respondent that once the Central Vigilance Committee had recommended dropping of charges, the Disciplinary Authority was bound by the advice of the CVC. The Counsel further contended that there were no substantial grounds to remit the matter to the IO for a fresh inquiry, as required by Rule 9(1) of the AIS (D & A) Rules.

Satisfied by the submissions of the Counsel, the Tribunal set aside the decision of the DA to remit the matter to the IO for a fresh inquiry by an order dated 7 November 2019.

Aggrieved by the decision, the UOI (Petitioner) approached the High Court.

Contentions of the Petitioner:

• The Counsel for the Petitioner argued that as per Rule 9 of the AIS (D & A) Rules, the Disciplinary Committee was not barred from remitting the matter for a fresh Inquiry after the advice of CVC nor was it prevented on the ground that a copy of the Inquiry Report was supplied to the Respondent for his reply.
• It was further submitted that the Order directing fresh inquiry mentioned the ground on the basis of which a fresh inquiry was necessary.
• Contending that the Disciplinary Authority could exercise its jurisdiction and no appeal would lie against it, the Counsel asserted that the respondent would be provided ample opportunity to defend himself before the Investigating Officer.

Contentions of the Respondent:

• Citing Rules 8 and 9, the Counsel for the Respondent submitted that a specific scheme of the proceedings and provisions relating to holding of the inquiry was laid down as per AIS (D & A) Rules.
• It was contended in relation to the statement above, that after the DA has procured the second stage of advice from CVC and the same has been sent to the charged officer(Petitioner) and is further replied to by the Officer, the DA could not exercise the right to revert to Rule 9(1) for a fresh inquiry.
• Terming the reason for remitting the matter to the IO for a fresh inquiry as 'vague', the Counsel submitted that the lack of crucial evidence as mentioned as a ground for remission in the order does not mention the nature of the evidence that is missing.
• It was further stated that there was no disclosure as to how the production of such evidence could have changed the decision of the IO.

Findings of the Court:

The Court looked into the two considerations that the Tribunal took into account while allowing the application of the Respondent. First one being that the matter was referred to the CVC for its advice and a copy of the Inquiry Report was forwarded to the respondent and the second being the absence of satisfactory grounds for remitting the matter for further enquiry.

Expressing disagreement in connection with the first consideration, the Court held that there was no statutory proscription in the rules on the DA remitting the matter to the IO for a fresh inquiry under Rule 9(1) even after the advice of CVC was obtained and a copy of the enquiry report was provided to the Charged Officer. It was observed that the Tribunal erred in concluding that the DA exhausts its right to remit the matter to the IO under rule 9(1).

However, regarding the second consideration, the Court observed that as per the Order of Remission, no substantial 'reasons' were provided as was required by Rule 9(1). The Bench asserted that when a Rule requires reasons to be recorded in writing, such reasons have to be 'meaningful' and 'self-speaking' and cannot be left to be imagined. In the remission order, the Court held that there were hardly any substantial reasons provided in writing that could justify the decision of the DA to remit the matter to the IO.

In establishing the same, the Court referred to the decision cited in the decision taken in UOI v Mohan Lal Capoor to stress upon what constituted 'reasons'.,

“Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject-matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Only in this way can opinions or decisions recorded be shown to be manifestly just and reasonable.”

Making these observations, the Court held that after traversing through events leading to the issuance of the remission order, it seems as if the DA intended on ensuring that the charges against the petitioner were proved.

Accordingly, finding no error in the Judgement passed by the Tribunal, the Petition was dismissed.

Case Title: UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Versus ANAND MOHAN SHARAN & ANR

Counsel for Petitioner: Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC with Mr. Chandan Prajapati, Advocate

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. A.K. Behera, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amarendra P. Singh, Advocate

Click here to download Order/Judgement