Inquiry Report Stayed Pending Investigation into Allegations of Bias and Demand for Illegal Consideration Against Inquiry Officer

The Applicant, a 2009-batch IPS officer, was served a charge-memo on 14.03.2018 for allegedly leveling unsubstantiated allegations against senior AIS officers.

Respondent No. 3 (an IAS officer) was appointed as the Inquiry Officer (I.O.) on 05.10.2018.

The Applicant submitted multiple representations on 12.04.2024, 06.06.2024, and 10.09.2024 requesting a change of I.O., citing the officer's past suspension and doubtful integrity.

On 13.12.2024, the Applicant filed a serious complaint alleging that the I.O. demanded a bribe/consideration to close the case in his favor.

Despite these pending objections, the I.O. submitted an Inquiry Report on 03.01.2025 finding the charges proved.

The Applicant challenged the non-consideration of his requests for change of I.O. and the validity of the subsequent report.

1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings and the resulting Inquiry Report were vitiated by bias and a violation of the principles of natural justice due to the non-consideration of the Applicant's allegations against the Inquiry Officer.

2. Whether the Respondents were required to adjudicate upon the specific allegation of a demand for consideration by the I.O. before proceeding with the finalization of the inquiry.

Principles of natural justice and the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969.

Precedent established in Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India & Ors. (1987), which mandates that quasi-judicial processes must be conducted by impartial persons acting without bias, failing which the proceedings are a nullity or "coram non-judice".

Procedural requirement for the Disciplinary Authority to address claims of bias during the pendency of an inquiry.

The Tribunal observed that while a prior suspension of an I.O. does not automatically render them unfit, the specific and repeated objections raised by the Applicant were entirely ignored by the Respondents.

The Tribunal noted that the allegation dated 13.12.2024—regarding a demand for a bribe—was made before the submission of the final Inquiry Report.

The Tribunal held that such a serious allegation goes to the root of impartiality. Because the Respondents could not provide evidence that these complaints were ever considered or adjudicated upon, the fairness of the inquiry was compromised.

The Tribunal found that proceeding with the Inquiry Report while a serious allegation of bias/corruption against the I.O. remained unaddressed violated the minimal requirements of natural justice.

The competent authority is directed to investigate the allegations against the I.O. in accordance with AIS (D&A) Rules and pass a reasoned order, which may include a de-novo inquiry if the allegations are substantiated. All consequential disciplinary proceedings based on the Inquiry Report dated 03.01.2025 shall remain stayed until the competent authority decides on the Applicant's complaint.