Retired Employee can be Appointed as Inquiry Officer in Central Civil Service Rules-SC.

 Supreme Court of India.
Case title: Union of India v. Jagdish Chandra Sethy.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 609.

Click here to read the Court Copy of the Judgment.

Judgment: Retired Employee can be Appointed as Inquiry Officer in Central Civil Service Rules.

Case: An appeal was filed against the Odisha HC judgment which relied on Ravi Malik v. National Film Development Corporation to hold that a retired public servant could not have been appointed as an inquiry officer.

Judgment: Judgment/order of the High Court dated 07.01.2010, upholding the decision/findings of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack dated 08.02.2008 passed in O.A. No.828 of 2005, is erroneous and unsustainable. Disciplinary authority under the Central Civil Service Rules is empowered to appoint a retired employee as an inquiry authority. It is not necessary that the inquiry officer should be a public servant. - PARA-1.

Background of the Case: Respondent had challenged the order of disciplinary authority before Central Administrative Tribunal at Cuttack where he contended that the authority had not recorded specific reasons why a retired government servant was appointed to act as an inquiry officer. The same was upheld both by CAT and High Court.

Judgment of the Court with reasoning:

1.    Ravi Malik v. National Film Development Corporation, (2004) 13 SCC 427 relied by the Hon’ble High Court of Odisha in its judgment wouldn’t be applicable in the present case. In that case, Rule 23(b) of Service Regulations,1982 of NFDC was applicable which specifically stated that the disciplinary authority may appoint a “public servant” to inquire into the misconduct of an employee. Whereas in this case, Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services, 1965 would apply where disciplinary authority may appoint an “authority” to inquire into the misconduct of a govt employee. -PARA-2-3.

2.    Therefore, the disciplinary authority is empowered to appoint a retired employee as an inquiry authority. It is not necessary that the inquiry officer should be a public servant. Hence, no fault can be found as the inquiry officer was not a public servant, but a retired officer.”

3.    Court referred to Union of India v. PC Ramakrishnnaya,(2010) 8 SCC 644. which made a reference precedent set in Union of India v. Alok Kumar (2010) 5 SCC 349. The court noted that the Alok Kumar case had made it clear that Rule 9(3) used the word “other authority” and not “public servant” who may conduct an inquiry. It observed, “a retired officer could also be vested with the delegated authority of the disciplinary authority to hold the inquiry.”