Supreme Court consented to a retired employee serving as inquiry authority in disciplinary procedures.

The Supreme Court in the case Union of India v. Jagdish Chandra Sethy observed and has held that the disciplinary authority under the Central Civil Service Rules is empowered to appoint a retired employee as an inquiry authority and it is not necessary that the inquiry officer needs to be a public servant.

The bench comprising of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Bela M Trivedi in the case observed while hearing an appeal against the judgment of the Orissa High Court and has relied on the case Ravi Malik v. National Film Development Corporation wherein it was held that the retired public servant could not have been appointed as an inquiry officer.

The said court distinguished it and stated that the same would not be applicable in the present case. The court stated that in this case Rule 23(b) of Service Regulations,1982 of NFDC was applicable which specifically stated that the disciplinary authority may appoint the ‘public servant’ to inquire into the misconduct of an employee. Whereas in the said case, the Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services, 1965 would apply where disciplinary authority may appoint an ‘authority’ in order to inquire into the misconduct of a govt employee.

Therefore, it has been held by the said court that the disciplinary authority is empowered to appoint a retired employee as an inquiry authority and it not being necessary for the inquiry officer to be a public servant.

The said court stated that this court found no fault as the inquiry officer was not a public servant, but a retired officer. The court also referred to the case Union of India v. PC Ramakrishnnaya, wherein the reference precedent set in the Alok Kumar case. Further, it has also been noted by the said court in the case of Alok Kumar wherein the said court had made it clear that Rule 9(3) used the word ‘other authority’ and not ‘public servant’ who may conduct an inquiry.

Accordingly, the court allowed the appeal and has set aside the High Court judgment wherein it upheld the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack bench.

The respondent named Jagdish Chandra Sethy had assailed the order of disciplinary authority before the Central Administrative Tribunal at Cuttack. However, it has been contended by him before the court that the authority had not recorded specific reasons why a retired government servant was appointed to act as an inquiry officer. Thus, the tribunal agreed and has passed an order in his Favor. Therefore, the applicant approached the High Court again to upheld the order of the tribunal.

Further, the appellant approached the Supreme Court challenging the impugned judgment of High Court.

Written by A.Sameeksha, 3rd semester law student, at Symbiosis Law School Hyderabad, intern under Legal Vidhiya.

Admin