A fresh disciplinary inquiry cannot be ordered merely to cure evidentiary omissions in a completed inquiry.

The applicant, a Surveyor with the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), was served with a charge memorandum dated 24 January 2014 under Regulation 25 of the DDA Conduct, Disciplinary and Appeal Regulations, 1999.

After an inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted a report dated 20 April 2015 holding both charges “not proved”.

The Disciplinary Authority disagreed, principally because certain alleged key witnesses had not been examined, and remitted the matter for further inquiry under Regulation 26(1).

Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority dropped the original charge memorandum and issued a fresh charge memorandum dated 28 July 2016, incorporating the proposed additional witnesses.

During the litigation, he retired on 31 October 2017.

Whether the Disciplinary Authority could abandon an inquiry in which the charges had been held “not proved” and institute a fresh inquiry merely because certain material witnesses had not been examined.

Whether Regulations 25(15) and 26(1) of the DDA Conduct, Disciplinary and Appeal Regulations, 1999 authorised a de novo inquiry after completion of the earlier inquiry.

Whether the applicant was entitled to consequential relief, including regularisation of suspension, consideration for promotion, and consequential monetary and pensionary benefits.

Regulation 25(15) of the DDA Conduct, Disciplinary and Appeal Regulations, 1999, which permits the Inquiring Authority, before closure of the case, to allow additional evidence, call new evidence, or recall witnesses, subject to procedural safeguards.

Regulation 26(1) permits the Disciplinary Authority, for recorded reasons, to remit a case to the Inquiring Authority for further inquiry and report, to be conducted in accordance with Regulation 25.

Relying on K.R. Deb v. Collector of Central Excise, (1971) 2 SCC 102, and Vijay Shankar Pandey v. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 9043/2014, decided on 22 September 2014, the Tribunal held that the normal rule is that there can be only one inquiry.

A further inquiry may be ordered only where serious defects, procedural irregularities, or non-availability of important witnesses have materially impaired the original inquiry, and not merely because the Disciplinary Authority is dissatisfied with an exonerating report.

The Disciplinary Authority cannot completely discard the earlier inquiry and order successive inquiries to cure evidentiary deficiencies or obtain a different result.

The Tribunal found that the original inquiry had been completed in accordance with Regulation 25 and that the Inquiry Officer had submitted a final report holding both charges not proved.

The omission to examine witnesses who were not included in the original list of witnesses did not, by itself, establish a breach of natural justice or a serious procedural defect warranting abandonment of the inquiry.

Although Regulation 25(15) permitted the production or examination of additional evidence during the inquiry, and Regulation 26(1) permitted a limited further inquiry, these provisions did not authorise the Disciplinary Authority to terminate the completed inquiry and commence a fresh de novo inquiry merely to cure evidentiary shortcomings or overcome an unfavourable report.

Permitting such action would expose employees to repeated and potentially interminable departmental inquiries and amount to harassment, contrary to the principle stated in K.R. Deb and Vijay Shankar Pandey.

Since the applicant had also retired during the prolonged proceedings, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to put the matter to an end rather than permit continuation of the disciplinary process.

The fresh charge memorandum dated 28 July 2016 and the consequential order dated 16 August 2016 were set aside.

The applicant was held entitled to consequential benefits under the applicable rules.

The DDA was directed to decide the regularisation of his suspension from 11 July 2013, consider his promotion as Assistant Director (Survey) with effect from 5 May 2014—the date on which his immediate junior was promoted—and, if promotion was granted, refix his pay and release admissible arrears and pensionary benefits.

The directions were to be complied with preferably within eight weeks of receipt of the certified order.

In view of the applicant’s retirement, the disciplinary matter was put to quietus, and the O.A. was disposed of without costs.