Fayaz Bukhari
Srinagar, Feb 8: In a land mark judgment, the State High Court today held that employer can order for second inquiry against its employee on misconduct if he/she is exonerated in first inquiry.
Allowing the appeal filed by Government of India through Secretary Ministry of Home and Director General of Police CRPF, court held the second inquiry initiated by the department against its delinquent officer, who was serving as Commandant in Central Reserve Police Force is tenable and rational.
“We have gone through memo of appeal Mr. Makroo ASGI, urged that a preliminary inquiry is to be distinguished from regular inquiry and therefore more than one preliminary inquires cannot stand in the way of Disciplinary Authority to order a regular inquiry”, said the Division Bench headed by Chief Justice N Paul Vasanthakumar.
Court, while setting aside the single bench judgment wherein second inquiry against the delinquent officer was quashed, said that the Disciplinary Authority may without preliminary inquiry, order a departmental inquiry against the Government employee on the charges of misconduct.
“In such case, the Authority would be free to direct a regular inquiry notwithstanding the outcome of the fact finding inquiry or ask officers to conduct preliminary inquiry afresh”, the Division Bench said.
Underscoring that the authority would be acting within its powers when it directs regular inquiry on the basis of report asking for inquiry into the matter afresh and the single bench has held that after exonerating from the charges the second inquiry in absence of valid reasons was incompetent.
Court with regard to first inquiry wherein the delinquent official was exonerated, said the inquiry officer did not come across material in support of the allegations set out in the complaint. “A second fact finding inquiry and a regular inquiry directed on basis thereof are not to be held incompetent and liable to be set aside”, court underlined.
Court further said that the single judge has escaped from the attention that the punishment (compulsory retirement) to delinquent officer was not to weed out indolent and corrupt officer but the second enquiry was conducted against the delinquent officer on the charge of misconduct with the wife of his colleague.
“The matter therefore was entirely different from compulsory retirement on the basis of indolence, incompetence etc. The conclusion drawn by the single judge therefore cannot be accepted”, Division Bench held in its judgment.
Division Bench finally set aside the single judge judgment whereby the delinquent officer was held innocent and second inquiry against him was quashed and said the appeal of employer against the writ court order succeeds and is “hereby allowed”.
The delinquent officers Anil Vyas, Commandant, 163 Battalion CRPF, Rambagh, Srinagar was found guilty of misconduct to the wife of Medical officer, serving in the same battalion by making repeated phone calls to her and insisting of an exclusive meeting.
Follow our WhatsApp channel