Rule 15(1) permits only limited further inquiry; a de novo disciplinary inquiry is impermissible.

The applicant, a retired Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise, was served with a charge memorandum dated 29.01.2013 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, containing two articles of charge.

An Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry and submitted a report in 2013, to which the applicant submitted his representation.

Following his retirement on 30.09.2015, the disciplinary proceedings continued under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, now corresponding to Rule 8 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021.

The competent authority identified deficiencies in the first inquiry report and remitted the matter to the original Inquiry Officer under Rule 15(1) for further inquiry.

Since the original Inquiry Officer had retired and was medically unable to undertake the exercise, a new Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed by orders dated 02/06.08.2018.

A subsequent inquiry culminated in a report dated 20.08.2019, followed by an order dated 03.03.2023 withholding 10% of the applicant’s monthly pension for one year.

The applicant challenged the appointment of the new Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer in O.A. No. 040/00344/2018.

That application was disposed of on 18.03.2021, without examination of the merits, with a direction to complete the inquiry and pass a final order.

In the present application, the applicant challenged the second inquiry, the inquiry report dated 20.08.2019, and the penalty order dated 03.03.2023, seeking restoration of his full pension and refund of the deductions.

Whether the appointment of a new Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer, after the retirement and incapacity of the original Inquiry Officer, was legally permissible under Rule 15(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965?

Whether the subsequent proceedings constituted a permissible “further inquiry” under Rule 15(1), or an impermissible fresh/de novo inquiry into the entire charge memorandum?

Whether the absence of a disagreement note under Rule 15(2) invalidated the subsequent disciplinary proceedings?

Whether the inquiry report dated 20.08.2019 and the consequential penalty order dated 03.03.2023 could be sustained?

Rule 15(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which permits the Disciplinary Authority, for recorded reasons, to remit a case to the Inquiry Officer for a further inquiry and report, but does not authorise an unrestricted de novo inquiry.

Rule 15(2) requires that, where the Disciplinary Authority proposes to disagree with the Inquiry Officer’s findings on the merits, the employee must be furnished the inquiry report and tentative reasons for disagreement and given an opportunity to respond.

Relying on K.R. Deb v. Collector of Central Excise, (1971) 2 SCC 102, and Vijay Shankar Pandey v. Union of India, (2014) 10 SCC 589, the Tribunal reiterated that the normal rule is that there should be only one inquiry; a further inquiry may be ordered to cure serious defects or obtain material evidence, but a completed inquiry cannot be discarded merely to secure a different conclusion.

The disciplinary proceedings after retirement were governed by Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, corresponding to Rule 8 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021.

The Tribunal held that the appointment of another Inquiry Officer was not, by itself, without jurisdiction because the original Inquiry Officer had retired and was medically unable to rectify the deficiencies identified in his report.

However, the successor Inquiry Officer’s authority remained limited by Rule 15(1).

The first inquiry report dated 19.09.2013 continued to form part of the disciplinary record and could not be treated as non-existent.

The subsequent proceedings were not confined to curing the specific defects identified in the original report; instead, the matter was substantially reopened and adjudicated afresh, resulting in an independent report dated 20.08.2019.

This amounted to a de novo inquiry, which exceeded the limited power of conducting a “further inquiry” under Rule 15(1).

The Tribunal further clarified that the absence of a disagreement note did not automatically invalidate a genuine further inquiry directed at procedural defects.

However, where the authority effectively replaced the original inquiry with a fresh inquiry, it could not bypass the safeguards of Rule 15(2) by invoking Rule 15(1).

The earlier order in O.A. No. 040/00344/2018 did not validate the second inquiry, as it had expressly been passed without examining the merits.

Accordingly, the inquiry report dated 20.08.2019 and the consequential penalty order dated 03.03.2023 withholding 10% of the applicant’s pension for one year were quashed and set aside.

The matter was remitted to the competent Disciplinary Authority to conduct only a limited further inquiry under Rule 15(1), confined to curing the specific deficiencies in the earlier inquiry; no fresh inquiry into the charges as a whole was permitted.

The earlier inquiry proceedings and report were to remain part of the disciplinary record, and Rule 15(2) was to be followed if the Disciplinary Authority proposed to disagree with the findings on merits.

The respondents were directed to restore the affected pension and refund the amount withheld, subject to the final lawful decision, and to complete the exercise within four months of receiving the order.

The Original Application was partly allowed, with no order as to costs.