IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 18584 of 2008 Between: 1 The Union of India, Rep by its Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Department of Mines, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001. 2 The Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi. 3 The Director General, Geological Survey of India, 27, JLN Road, Kolkata. 4 The Dy. Director General, Southern Region, GSI Complex, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad - 68. 5 Sri S.K. Acharyya, Director General (Retd.) 15, Sharat Banerjee Road, Near Lake Market, Kolkata. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Shri P.C. Ramakrishnaiah, S/o. Viswanatham, R/o. Mohan Nagar, SBH Colony, Kothapet, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue order or direction more particualarly in the nature of 'Writ of Certiorari" calling for the records pertaining to orders dated 17-12-2007 in OA No. 531 of 2004 on the ﬁle of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and violation of Article 14 of the constitution of India and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.T.P.ACHARYA The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 18584 OF 2008 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Jutice GhulamMohammed) This writ petition has been ﬁled by Union of India challenging the order dated 17-12-2007 passed in O.A.NO.531 of 2004 on the ﬁle of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad whereby the Tribunal remitted the case back to the disciplinary authority to reconsider the case particularly the objections raised by the charged oﬃcial regarding appointment of Inquiry Oﬃcer. The Tribunal has also followed the judgments of the Apex Court. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The respondent joined in Geological Survey of India (GSI) in June, 1961, in Group ‘C’ post. He was superannuated from service on 30-11-2000. He was holding group ‘B’post at the time of superannuation. At the time of superannuation he was associated with a number of trade unions operating in GSI, Mineral Exploration Corporation, Nuclear Fuel Complex, India Govt. Mint, Hindustan Zinc Ltd., National Institution of Nutritional, Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization, National Remote Sensing Agency, Employees Provident Fund Organisation etc., The respondent was served on 24-11-2000 with a show cause notice dated 23-11-2000 calling upon him to submit his explanation within seven days i.e. by 1-12-2000 by which date both the respondent and the 5th petitioner were to be out of service. The respondent submitted a reply dated 28- 11-2000 denying the charges and explaining the events of the malaﬁde actions of the 5th petitioner against the respondent and requested the Director General, GSI to drop further action in the matter to save loss and hardship to the respondent in particular and uphold the prestige of organization. But no action has been taken on the representation submitted by the respondent and the disciplinary authority appointed one Sri S.M.M.V. Krishna Rao, CGM (Retired) IDBI, Hyderad as Inquiry Oﬃcer to enquire into the charges framed against the respondent. 2nd Petitioner without properly appreciating the factual and legal position has recommended to impose on the respondent a penalty of cut in pension of 10% for two years without any notice or giving opportunity to the respondent. The respondent has questioned the impugned order of cut in pension of 10% on the ground that the appointment of Inquiry Oﬃcer who is outsider is contrary to law and the allegations contained in the charge Memo dated 23-11-2000 are based only on Rule 15(1) ( c) of CCS ( Conduct) Rules, 1964 about the trade union activities of the respondent outside GSI which is legally unsustainable and therefore all the proceedings initiated pursuant to the said charge Memo dated 23-11-2000 are vitiated and are liable to be set aside. The appointment of Inquiry Oﬃcer who is an outsider is not permissible as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Suprme Court in National High School, Madras Vs. Education Tribunal[1] 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 appointed as an Inquiry 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 obtained at appropriate level.”. 3. The respondent has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ravi Malik Vs. National Film Development Corporation Ltd.,[2] wherein it was held that ‘Public servant’ in Rule 23(b) meant person appointed as an inquiry oﬃcer must be a servant of the public and not a person who was a servant of the public. Therefore, a retired oﬃcer would not be a public servant for the purpose of Rule 23(b) and Rule 7 cannot be interpreted to mean that the direction issued by the Central Vigilance Commission would override interpretation put by Court, as a matter of law, on it. 4. The Tribunal has considered all these points with regard to appointment of Inquiry Oﬃcer and case was remitted back to the disciplinary authority to reconsider the case particularly the objections raised by the charged oﬃcial regarding appointment of Inquiry Oﬃcer and to pass appropriate orders and quashed the order of the disciplinary authority dated 7-7-2003 and directed the authority to consider the objections raised by the respondent as mentioned above including the service of notice and punishment imposed and pass appropriate order within a period of two month from the date of communication of the order. The disciplinary authority, while considering the same shall keep in mind the verdict of the apex Court as pointed out by the respondent. 5. Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that any retired employee can be appointed as Inquiry Oﬃcer under Rule 14(2) of CCS ( CCA Rules) 1965. He further contended that the respondent not at all appeared before the Inquiry Oﬃcer only to evade the Enquiry in one way or other and ﬁnally the ex-parte enquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Oﬃcer as there is no other alternative. He further contended that as per Rule 14(2) of CCS (CCA Rules), 1965 the Disciplinary Authority may itself enquire into the matter or appoint any person as Inquiry Oﬃcer to enquire into the truth of the imputations of charges and prayed that the order passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable. 6. We do not ﬁnd any substance in the argument advanced by the learned Asst. Solicitor General, as the Tribunal has passed just and reasoned order by applying the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases referred to supra. 7. In these circumstances, we do not ﬁnd any inﬁrmity warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED ______________________________ JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD 19th September, 2008. KM THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 18584 OF 2008 19th September, 2008. [1] AIR 1992 SC 717 [2] 2006 SCC (L & S ) 882