1990 JTR(SC) 619
1993 AIR(SC) 55 ; 1990 2 Scale 1161 ; 1993 2 SCC 55 ; 1993 SCC(L&S) 324
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANGANATH MISRA, CJI., M.H. KANIA, P.B. SAWANT, JJ.
.D. TRIVEDI
Versus
UNION OF INDIA .
Disciplinary proceedings should be vacated if an Inquiry Officer finds charges not proved. Additionally, actions performed by an official in a quasi-judicial capacity cannot form the basis for disciplinary action.
(A) Service Law - Departmental Inquiry - Disciplinary Action - Findings of Inquiry Officer - Charges not proved - Proceedings vacated - Action taken in a quasi-judicial capacity should not form the basis of disciplinary action. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against an official. An Inquiry Officer submitted a report concluding that the charges framed against the official had not been proved. The respondent contended that since the report was to be submitted to the vigilance commission for a final order, the court should not pass a final order based solely on the findings of the Inquiry Officer.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the charges against the appellant were not proved as per the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. The court further observed that the action taken by the appellant was quasi-judicial in nature.
Issues: Whether disciplinary proceedings can be vacated based on an Inquiry Officer's finding that charges are not proved, and whether actions performed in a quasi-judicial capacity can form the basis for disciplinary action.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that when an Inquiry Officer concludes that the charges are not proved, the proceedings against the official can be vacated. Furthermore, actions taken by an official in a quasi-judicial capacity should not be used as the basis for initiating disciplinary action.
Result: Appeals allowed and proceedings vacated.
Facts of the case:
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against an official. An Inquiry Officer submitted a report concluding that the charges framed against the official had not been proved. The respondent contended that since the report was to be submitted to the vigilance commission for a final order, the court should not pass a final order based solely on the findings of the Inquiry Officer.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the charges against the appellant were not proved as per the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. The court further observed that the action taken by the appellant was quasi-judicial in nature.
Issues: Whether disciplinary proceedings can be vacated based on an Inquiry Officer's finding that charges are not proved, and whether actions performed in a quasi-judicial capacity can form the basis for disciplinary action.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that when an Inquiry Officer concludes that the charges are not proved, the proceedings against the official can be vacated. Furthermore, actions taken by an official in a quasi-judicial capacity should not be used as the basis for initiating disciplinary action.
Result: Appeals allowed and proceedings vacated.
ORDER
1. Special leave granted.
2. This Court on September 19, 1990 had directed the respondent to produce the Inquiry Report. The Inquiry Report dated May 31, 1990 submitted by Dr P.K. Bandhyopadhyaya, Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries is now placed before us. The Commissioner in his report has ultimately come to the conclusion that the charge framed against the appellant has not been proved. Respondents counsel has suggested to us that since this has ultimately to go to the Central Vigilance Commission and the final order is to be made by them we should not on the basis of the report make any final order. We are not impressed by the submission. We allow the appeals on the basis of findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and vacate the proceedings against the appellant as we are also of the view that the action taken by the appellant was quasi-judicial and should not have formed the basis of the disciplinary action.
For citation: (1993) 2 SCC 55
Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.