UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusP.C. RAMAKRISHNAYYA

                    [2010] 10 S.C.R. 414

A                  UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
                                v.
                     P.C. RAMAKRISHNAYYA
                 (Civil Appeal no. 6743 of 2010)
                        AUGUST 18, 2010
B
             [AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.]

       Service Law - Departmental inquiry - Inquiry Officer
  appointed from a panel of retired officers prepared for the
C purpose of holding departmental inquiries - Validity of the
  inquiry challenged on the ground that a serving officer alone
  could be appointed as the Inquiry Officer - Held: The
  challenge is not tenable - Under the Rules, a retired officer
  could also be appointed as the Inquiry Officer - Central Civil
D Services (Classification; Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 -
  rule 14(2).

        Judgment/Order - Pronouncement of - Tribunal relied
  upon a passage, purportedly from a decision of the Supreme
E Court, which was quoted in the High Court order too -
  However, no such passage existing in the said Supreme Court
  decision - Held: The quoted passage was lifted from
  somewhere without proper verification from an approved law
  report - Regret expressed by Supreme Court at such cavalier
  attitude in making judicial pronouncements - Precedent.
F
        Precedent - Citation of - To be verified from approved
  law reports - Law Reports.

       Disciplinary inquiry was held against the
G respondent, an employee of the Geological Survey of
  India (GSI), under Rule 14(2) of the Central Civil Services
  (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The
  inquiry was conducted by an Inquiry Officer, who was
  not a serving officer of the GSI but a retired Chief General
H                               414
         UNION OF INDIAAND ORS. v. P.C.                415
               RAMAKRISHNAYYA
Manager of IDBI. The name of the Inquiry Officer was           A
taken from a panel of retired officers, prepared for the
purpose of holding departmental inquiries, which was
approved by the eentral Vigilance Commission.

    The respondent challenged the competence and               8
authority of the said Inquiry Officer to hold and conduct
the departmental inquiry, contending that a serving officer
alone could be appointed as Inquiry Officer, and did not
take part in the departmental Inquiry. Consequently, ex-
parte inquiry was held in which the charges were found         C
established against the respondent (who had
superannuated in the meanwhile) and he was given the
punishment of cut in pension for 2 years. However, the
Tribunal upheld the contention of the respondent, set
aside the punishment order and remanded the matter to
the disciplinary authority. The order passed by the            D
Tribunal was upheld by the High Court.

    Allowing the appeal, the Court

     HELD: 1. The question of validity of appointment of       E
a retired officer from a panel prepared for appointment of
Inquiry Officers for holding departmental inquiry was
examined in great detail in a recent decision of this Court
in Alok Kumar. The decision in A/ok Kumar was rendered
in a case under rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline
                                                               F
and Appeal) Rules, 1968 while the instant case arises fr.om
Rule 14(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. The provisions of rule
9(2) Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968
dealing with the appointment of inquiry officers are in pari
materia with rule 14(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. In Alok
Kumar, the Supreme Court considered in great detail, the       G
meaning of the word "authority" occurring in Rule 9(3)
and came to find and hold that a retired officer could also
be vested with the delegated authority of the Disciplinary
Authority to hold the inquiry. The judgments of the
Tribunal and the High Court are contrary to the correct        H
-
        416      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            (2010] 10 S.C.R.


    A legal position and, therefore, cannot be sustained. (Paras
      11, 13 and 14] {422-B-D; 423-F; 424-E]

             Union of India & Ors. v. Alok Kumar, 2010 (5) SCC 349
        - relied on.

    B        Ravi Malik vs. National Film Development Corporation
        Ltd. (2004) 13 sec 427 - referred to.

             2. There is a rather curious feature in the judgment
        passed by the Tribunal and the High Court. While
    c upholding the respondent's contention that a serving
        officer alone could be appointed as Inquiry Officer for
        holding a departmental inquiry under Rule 14(2) of the
        CCS (CCA) Rules, the Tribunal relied upon an extract
        purportedly from a decision of the Supreme Court in
    0 National High School's case, which was quoted in the
        High Court order too. However, in the said decision there
      . is no passage as attributed to it in the judgment passed
        by the Tribunal and the High Court. Had this mistake
        occurred only in the judgment of the Tribunal, one· could
    E have ignored it as an error of citation. But its repetition
        in the order of the High Court points to only one thing,
        that the quoted passage was lifted from somewhere
        without a proper verification from an approved law report.
        This Court expresses its regret at such cavalier attitude
        in making judicial pronouncements. (Paras 7, 10] (419-C-
    F D; 421-F-H]

           Ravi Malik v. National Film Development Corporation
      Ltd. & Ors. 2008 SCC (L&S) 882 and National High School,
      Madras vs. Education Tribunal AIR 1992 SC 717 - referred
    G to.
                            Case Law Reference:
              2008 SCC (L&S) 882    referr~d to         Para 7
              AIR 1992 SC 717       referred to         Para 7
    H
          UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. P.C.                   417
                RAMAKRISHNAYYA
    2010 (5) sec 349           relied on ,           Para 11        A
                                          l
    (2004) 13 sec 427          referred t<?          Para 13
                                          I

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
6743 of 2010.
                                                                    B
    From the Judgment & Order dated 19.09.2008 of the High
Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P.
No. 18584 of 2008.

    H.P. Raval, ASG T.S. Doabia, Manpreet Singh Doabia,             C
D.S. Mahra, Vaibhav Joshi for the Appellant.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    AFTAB ALAM,J. 1. Leave granted.

     2. This appeal raises the question regarding the validity      D
of a departmental inquiry, under rule 14 (2) of the Central Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 held
and conducted by an Inquiry Officer who was not a serving
officer but whose name was taken from a panel of retired
officers prepared for the purpose of holding departmental           E
inquiries.

     3. The respondent was an employee of the Geological
Survey of India (hereafter 'GSI') and at the material time he was
holding a Group 'B' post. He was due to superannuate from · F
service on November 30, 2000. On November 24, 2000, he
was served with a show cause notice dated November 23,
2000 in connection with various charges and asking him to give
his explanation within a week. The respondent gave his reply
to the show cause notice but it was not found satisfactory and G
a charge-sheet was issued against him. One Shri S.M.M.V.
Krishna Rao, was appointed as the Inquiry Officer who was
selected from a panel of retired officer~ for appointment as
Inquiry Officers approved by the Central Vigilance Commission.
The respondent took serious objection to the appointment of H
    418      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010) 10 S.C.R.


A Shri Krishna Rao as Inquiry Officer, who was not a serving
  officer of the GSI but a retired Chief General Manager of IDBI.
  The respondent did not take part in the departmental inquiry
  and strongly challenged the competence and authority of Shri
  Krishna Rao to hold and conduct the departmental inquiry
B against him. All through the disciplinary proceedings, the
  respondent stubbornly stuck to his stand and in response to
  notices issued by the Inquiry Officer in regard to the schedule
  of the inquiry his response would be that he had no authority to
  hold the inquiry. As a result of his non-participation an ex parte
c inquiry was held in which the charges were found established
  against him. The disciplinary authority then sent him a notice
  along with a copy of the inquiry report, calling upon him to make
  his representation, if any, on the inquiry report within 15 days.
  In response to the notice, the respondent once again reiterated
  that the inquiry held against him was illegal and invalid.
D Eventually, by order dated July .7, 2003, he was given the
  punishment of cut in pel"lsion by 10% for 2 years.

       4. The respondent challenged the punishment order before
  the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench,
E Hyderabad, in QA no.531 of 2004. The challenge to the
  punishment order was mainly on the ground that the punishment
  order was passed on the basis of an invalid departmental
  inquiry inasmuch as the Inquiry Officer had no competence or
  authority to conduct the inquiry. The Tribunal by its judgment
F dated December 17, 2007, upheld the respondent's contention,
  set aside the punishment order and remanded the matter
  ordering as follows:

          "25. In view of the above, we quash and set aside the order
          of the disciplinary authority dated 07.07.2003 and direct
G
          the authority to consider the objections raised by the
          applicant as mentioned above including the service of
          notice and punishment imposed and pass appropriate
          order thin (sic within) a period of two months from the date
          of communication of the order. The disciplinary authority,
H
         UNION OF INDIAAND ORS. v. P.C.                     419
        RAMAKRISHNAYYA [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
    while considering the same shall keep in mind the verdict       A
    of the Apex court as pointed out by the applicant."

      5. The appellants took the matter to the High Court in Writ
petition no.18584 of 2008. and the High Court by its order dated
September 19, 2008 affirmed the judgment and order passed           B
by the Tribunal and dismissed the appellants' writ petition.

    6. The appellants have now brought this matter in appeal
before this Court.

      7. Before adverting to the merits of the case, we must note   C
a rather curious feature in the judgment and order passed by
the Tribunal and the High Court. While upholding the
respondent's contention that a serving officer alone could be
appointed as Inquiry_ Officer for holding a departmental inquiry
under rule 14 (2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 the Tribunal         D
has referred to and relied upon two decisions of this Court. One,
in the case of Ravi Mack (sic Ravi Malik) vs. National Film
Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors, 2008 SCC (L&S) 882
which is referred to in paragraph 10 of the Tribunal judgment
(at page 167 of the Paper Book). No exception can be taken
                                                                    E
to this reference. But in the concluding portion of paragraph 8
of its judgment (at page 165 of the Paper Book) the Tribunal
also quotes the following extrac. i)Urportedly from a decision
of this Court in National High School, Madras vs. Education
 Tribunal, AIR 1992 SC 717.
                                                                    F
    "The principle in this regard is that if the rules specifically
    provide that a person not belonging to the service
    concerned or even outsider can be appointed as an
    Inquiring Authority, no difficulty shall arise. But when the
    Rules do not provide for it, an outsider may be appointed ·G
    as an Inquiring Authority only after the consent of the
    employee concerned is obtained and relaxation of the rule
    is obtained at appropriate level." •

                                                                    H
    420       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              (2010) 10 S.C.R.


A        8. The same extract is quoted in the High Court order with
    the following observations (at pages 6 & 7 of the Paper Book):

          "The appointment of Inquiry Officer who is an outsider is
          not permissible as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble
          Supreme Court in National High School, Madras vs.
B
          Education Tribunal which reads as follows:

                "The principle in this regard is that if the rules
                specifically provide that a person not belonging to
                the service concerned or even outsider can be
c               appointed as an Inquiring Authority, no difficulty
                shall arise. But when the Rules do not provide for
                it, an outsider may be appointed as an Inquiring
                Authority only after the consent of the employee
                concerned is obtained and relaxation of the rule is
D               obtained at appropriate level." "

       9. The above quotation is not from the decision in National
  High School, Madras. The decision in that case is quite brief
  and of no more than 6 paragraphs. In that case the teacher of
E a recognized private school was proceeded against on certain
  charges. In reply to the show cause notice by him, it was
  pleaded that the inquiry into the matter should be made by
  some retired educationists in the local area and not by the
  school committee. The school committee acceded to his
  request and a committee (other than the school committee) was
F constituted for holding the inquiry. The committee found him
  guilty and submitted a. report to the school committee on the
  basis of which he was dismissed from service. He challenged
  his dismissal order before the Joint Director who allowed his
  application on the ground that the inquiry could only be
G conducted by the school committee. The view taken by the Joint
  Director was upheld by the Education Tribunal. A learned single
  judge of the High Court took the contrary view and held that the
  school committee must take the decision on the misconduct but
  the inquiry could be entrusted to others. On further appeal, the
H division bench of the High Court took the same view as the
         UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. P.C.                      421
        RAMAKRISHNAYYA [AFTAB ALAM, J.)
Joint Director; it observed that the management had no power          A
to constitute any other committee to inquire into the misconduct
of teachers and the school committee should itself conduct the
inquiry. When the matter reached this Court, it took the only
logical view and pointed out that in the facts of the case the
whole debate was quite academic inasmuch as the school                B
committee entrusted the inquiry to another committee
constituted for that purpose on the express request of the
concerned teacher. It was, therefore, not open to him to question
the inquiry held by that committee, that was constituted as per
his own request. In paragraph 4 of the judgment, this Court           c
observed and held as follows:

     "4 .... In our opinion, it is unnecessary to decide this issue
     since the appeal could be conveniently disposed of on
     another ground. It is not in dispute that the respondent
     himself demanded that the enquiry should be held by              D
     educationists other than the school committee. That
     request seems to have been necessitated since he has
     made accusations against the Headmaster of the School.
     Accordingly a committee of outsiders was appointed to
     hold the enquiry. The respondent participated in the             E
     enquiry and did not at ~ny time raise objection as to the
     jurisdiction of the committee. ' 'e was, therefore, estopped
     from raising the objection as to the jurisdiction of the
     school committee .... "
                                                                      F
      10. As stated above, in National High School, Madras
there is no passage as attributed to it in the judgment and order
passed by the Tribunal and the High Court. Now, had this
mistake occurred only in the judgment of the Tribunal, one could
have ignored it as an error of citation. But its repetition in the    G
order of the High Court points to only one thing, that the quoted
passage was lifted from somewhere without a proper
verification from an approved law report. We express our regret
at such cavalier attitude in making judicial pronouncements.

     11. Coming back to the merits of the case, we must point         H
    422       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2010] 10 S.C.R.


A   out that the issue is no longer res integra. The question of
    validity of appointment of a retired officer from a panel prepared
    for appointment of Inquiry Officers for holding departmental
    inquiry was examined in great detail in a recent decision of this
    Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. Alok Kumar, 2010 (5) SCC
B   349. It may be clarified that the decision in Alok Kumar was
    rendered in a case under rule 9 of the Railway Servants
    (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 and the present case
    arises from rule 14 (2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. But it needs
    to be pointed out that the provisions of rule 9 (2) Railway
c   Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 dealing with the
    appointment of inquiry officers are in pari materia with rule 14
    (2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. Rule 9 of the Railway Servants
    (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 is as follows:

          "9. Procedure for imposing major penalties. - (1) No order
D         imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to
          (ix) of sub-rule ( 1) of Rule 6 shall be made except after an
          inquiry held, as far as may be, in the manner provided in
          this rule and Rule 10, or in the manner provided by the
          Public Servants (Inquiries) Act. 1850 (37 of 1850), where
E         such inquiry is held under that Act.

                (2) Whenever the disciplinary authority is of the
          opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth
          of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against
F         a railway servant, it may itself inquire into, or appoint
          under this rule or under the provisions of the Public
          Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, as the case may be, [a
          Board of Inquiry or other authority] to inquire into the truth
          thereof.
G                 (3)Where a Board of Inquiry is appointed under sub-
           rule (2) it shall consist of not less than two members, each
           of whom shall be higher in rank than the railway servant
           against whom the inquiry is being held and none of whom
          ·shall be subordinate to the other member or members, as
H          the case may be, of such Board.
         UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. P.C.                      423
        RAMAKRISHNAYYA [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
           Explanation.- Where the disciplinary authority itself      A
    holds the inquiry, any reference in sub-rule (12) and in sub-
    rule (14) to sub-rule (25), to the inquiring authority shall be
    construed as a reference to the disciplinary authority."

    Rule 14 (2) of the CCS Rules is reproduced herein below:
                                                                      B
    "14. Procedure for imposing major penalties.-

    (1)xxxxxxx

    (2) Whenever the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion         C
    that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any
    imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against a
    Government servant, it may itself inquire into, or appoint
    under this rule, or under the provisions of the Public
    Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, as the case may be, an            D
    authority to inquire into the truth thereof."

     12. It is, thus, to be seen that the only difference between
rule 14 (2) of CCS (CCA) Rules and rule 9 (3) of Railway
Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules is that in the former the
words "a Board of Inquiry or" are not there. But that is of no        E
significance for the issue in hand.

     13. In Alok Kumar this Court considered in great detail,
the meaning of the word "authority" occurring in Rule 9(3) and
came to find and hold that a retired officer could also be vested
                                                                      F
with the delegated authority of the Disciplinary Authority (see
paragraphs 26-62) to hold the inquiry. It may also be noted that
in Alok Kumar, this Court also considered the decision in Ravi
Malik vs. National Film Development Corporation Ltd. (2004)
13 sec 427 and distinguished it by pointing out that it was in
the context of Rule 23 (b) of the Service Rules and Regulations,      G
1982 of the National Film Development Corporation. In
paragraph 45 of the judgment, the Court observed as follows:

    "45. Reliance placed by the respondents upon the
    judgment of this Court in Ravi Malik is hardly of any             H
    424       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010) 10 S.C.R.


A         assistance to them. Firstly, the facts and the rules falling
          for consideration before this Court in that case were entirely
          different. Secondly, the Court was concerned with the
          expression "public servant" appearing in Rule 23(b) of the
          Service Rules and Regulations, 1982 of the National Film
8         Development Corporation. The Court expressed the view
          that "public servant" should be understood in its common
          parlance and a retired officer would not fall within the
          meaning of "public servant", as by virtue of his retirement
          he loses the characteristics of being a public servant. That
c         is not the expression with which we are concerned in the
          present case. Rule 9(2) as well as Section 3 of the Act
          have used a very different expression i.e. "other authority"
          and "person/persons". In other words, the absence of the
          words "public servant" of the Government are conspicuous
          by their very absence. Thus, both these expressions, even
D
          as per the dictum of the Court should be interpreted as
          understood in the common parlance."

       14. In light of the discussions made above, we are satisfied
  that the judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court are
E contrary to the correct legal position and therefore cannot be
  sustained. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the Tribunal
  and the High Court and dismiss the respondent's OA no.531
  of 2004 filed before the Tribunal. The appeal is allowed.

F         15. There will be no order as to costs.

    8.B.8                                             Appeal allowed.