Disciplinary Authority cannot order fresh inquiry when rules only permit further evidence for specific procedural defects.

The applicant, a retired Assistant Engineer, faced disciplinary proceedings initiated on 28.07.2020 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965

The Inquiry Officer (IO) submitted a report on 22.11.2021, which was served to the applicant for representation

Despite a previous Tribunal direction in O.A. No. 3206/2024 to pass a final order within twelve weeks, the respondents instead issued impugned orders dated 06.11.2024 appointing a new Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer to conduct a fresh inquiry into the same charges

The respondents justified this on the grounds that the previous IO had recommended a specific penalty (which is outside an IO's remit) and that the original IO had since been transferred

1. Whether the Disciplinary Authority has the power to order a fresh/de novo inquiry after an Inquiry Report has already been submitted and served upon the delinquent employee under Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules

The Tribunal primarily applied Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which outlines the procedure for action on the inquiry report

It relied heavily on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.R. Deb v. The Collector of Central Excise, Shillong (1971), which established that Rule 15 provides for only one inquiry. While a Disciplinary Authority may direct the recording of "further evidence" to rectify technical defects or gaps, it lacks the power to completely set aside a previous inquiry and order a fresh one simply because the report's findings or recommendations do not appeal to the Authority

The Tribunal observed that the impugned order dated 06.11.2024 explicitly sought a new Inquiry Officer to "inquire into the charges" again, effectively initiating a fresh proceeding rather than a supplementary one

Applying the principle from K.R. Deb, the Tribunal reasoned that even if the previous IO erroneously recommended a penalty, the Disciplinary Authority possessed sufficient powers under Rule 15 to reconsider the existing evidence and reach its own independent findings

The transfer of the previous IO was deemed irrelevant because the inquiry had already concluded with the submission of the report

Consequently, the Tribunal found the appointment of a fresh IO to be a violation of statutory rules and established legal precedent

The Tribunal: (i) Quashed and set aside the impugned orders dated 06.11.2024; (ii) Granted the applicant liberty to submit an additional representation within one week; (iii) Directed the competent authority to pass a final order on the existing disciplinary proceedings within four weeks; and (iv) Ordered the release of the applicant’s retiral dues within two weeks thereafter