Directing a De Novo Enquiry Due to Disciplinary Authority's Dissatisfaction with Prior Findings Is Legally Impermissible

The Petitioner, a Lot Mandal (Land Record Assistant), was subjected to departmental proceedings (DP No. 11/2018) following allegations of demanding and receiving a bribe

An initial enquiry report dated 31.08.2023 found the Petitioner guilty and recommended compulsory retirement

The Petitioner challenged this report alleging non-furnishing of witnesses/documents and denial of cross-examination

Instead of rectifying the procedural lapses, the Disciplinary Authority (Respondent No. 4) appointed a second enquiry officer, citing dissatisfaction with the first report

The second enquiry officer re-confirmed the charges, expressly relying on the first officer’s findings

Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority issued a dismissal order on 10.01.2025

1. Whether the appointment of a second enquiry officer and a subsequent de novo enquiry, based on the Disciplinary Authority's dissatisfaction with the first report, is legally permissible under the service rules?

2. Whether the reliance of the second enquiry officer on the previous officer’s findings vitiates the departmental proceeding?

The Court applied the Assam Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1964, specifically Rule 9 and 9A, which mandate strict adherence to procedures for departmental enquiries

It relied on the Supreme Court precedents in K.R. Deb v. C.C.E. (1971) and Vijay Shankar Pandey v. Union of India (2014), which establish that while further evidence can be recorded to rectify serious defects, a Disciplinary Authority cannot set aside an enquiry report and order a fresh or de novo enquiry simply because the initial report’s conclusions are not to its liking

The Court observed that the Disciplinary Authority admitted to appointing a new enquiry officer because it was "not satisfied" with the first report

Under the 1964 Rules, the Authority has the power to reconsider evidence or ask for further evidence, but it cannot initiate a de novo proceeding to overcome lacunae or obtain a more favorable result

The Court found that the second enquiry officer was influenced by the findings of the first officer, which is contrary to the principle of an independent enquiry

Since the second enquiry was used as a tool to bypass procedural errors (like non-furnishing of documents) rather than correctly amending them within the original framework, the process was deemed ex-facie illegal and harassing to the employee

The matter was remanded back to the authorities to initiate a fresh departmental enquiry following the mandate of Rule 9 and Rule 9A of the 1964 Rules. The Petitioner is to be treated as under "deemed suspension" and is entitled to a subsistence allowance during the pendency of the new proceeding. The Court further directed that all relevant documents and witness lists must be formally communicated to the Petitioner with adequate opportunity for a reply