Change of inquiry officer
P. Venu
(Querist) 05 May 2015
This query is : Resolved
This topic was earlier posted in the Forum to elicit discussion on the questions of law involved. However, it appears, the topic remained unnoticed by the learned experts, other than Shri Vashista. Hence the matter is posted as a Query:
In a Departmental Inquiry (Disciplinary Proceedings) under CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 the Inquiry proceedings had been completed by the first week of December 2014 and the Presenting and Charged officers have submitted their written briefs to the Inquiry Officer by the end of Decmber 2014 and second week of January 2015 respectively. The only task remaining has been the submission of Iquiry Report, which in the normal course should have completed within a period of three months i.e. by the second week of April.
However, the Disciplinary Authority, by the Order dated 23rd April has appointed another Inquiry Officer citing the reason that the Original Inquiry Officer could not complete the Inquiry due to the completion of tenure in the Department before the final report could be prepared.
The Order is strange in more than one way: it does not cancel or rescind the appointment of the First Inquiry Officer nor is a copy of this Order endorsed to him. Secondly, the completion of the tenure has not been a new development. It was well known that his tenure was to complete on 16th January. Surprisingly, the new Inquiry Officer has been appointed more than three months thereafter. All that the new Inquiry Officer has to do is to prepare the final report.
Is the appointment of the new IO said to lawful or legally required?
Can the inquiry report prepared by the new IO said to be accordance with the provisions of Article 311?
Is not the new development repugnant to the provisions of CCS(CCA) Rules and discipline of the Constitution?
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 07 May 2015
In this case the tenure of IO completed and so far his appointment has not been re-called.
Does not matter whether he has retired or transferred. (unless suspended from service, dismissed or died. He continues to be the IO and is bound to submit the report. His tenure as IO does not come to end by transfer or retirement.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 07 May 2015
I may be able to offer further views on perusal of the appointment order of new IO.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 07 May 2015
Dear Venu Sir,
I have reserved my reply in order to give an authenticated opinion to your query,but my limited sources are not enabling me, shall take a few days more to give reply with authority. Hope you will bear?
Guest
(Expert) 08 May 2015
Dear Shri Venu,
If the inquiry was completed by the previous I.O., P.O. & the Defence Briefs submitted to him only there was no logic of change of the I.O. at the report stage. May that the deputation period of the previous I.O. has ended, but he is duty bound to submit his report, as all the stages of the inquiry were completed in all respects during his tenure, as I.O., irrespective of the end of deputation subsequently before submission of his report. So, even now he can submit his report. Probability of report having already been submitted by that I.O. cannot also be overruled, but being not of the taste of the Disciplinary Authority, he would have thought to take shelter of rule 14(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules on change of the I.O., the DA would have preferred to get report of his liking from the new I.O.
So far as the Ruling position is concerned, I may add as follows on your points of query:
Q.1: Is the appointment of the new IO said to lawful or legally required?
Ans: The appointment of the new I.O. is lawful as is covered under the provisions of Rule 14(22) of the Rules, ibid.
Q.2: Can the inquiry report prepared by the new IO said to be accordance with the provisions of Article 311?
Ans: Yes, the inquiry report prepared by the new I.O., would be in accordance with Article 311 of the Constitution, provided the previous I.O. has not already submitted his report before the date (23.04.2015) of appointment of the new I.O. If the previous I.O. has already submitted his inquiry report before 23.04.2015, the report of the new I.O. would not stand covered under the provisions of Rule 14(22) and the Article 311 of the Constitution.
Q.3: Is not the new development repugnant to the provisions of CCS(CCA) Rules and discipline of the Constitution?
Ans: No, provided the order of the new I.O. is not issued in the prescribed for No.9 meant for appointment of new I.O. under the provisions of Rule 14(2) read with Rule 14(22). You may have to tally the format of appointment of the new I.O. with the prescribed form No. 9.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 08 May 2015
I may be able to offer further views on perusal of the appointment order of new IO.
