Disciplinary Authority Cannot Review It's Own Decision In Concluded Enquiry Without Express Provisions: J&K&L High Court
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that a disciplinary authority cannot review or revisit its earlier decision taken based on an enquiry report unless the applicable service rules expressly confer such power, and any subsequent attempt to reopen the matter would be legally unsustainable.
The Court was hearing two connected writ petitions challenging the imposition of punishment of forfeiture of increments and initiation of successive enquiries on the same set of allegations relating to the submission of an incorrect date of birth certificate.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that “once a disciplinary authority has, on the basis of the report of enquiry made by the Enquiry Officer, taken a particular decision, the same cannot be reviewed by the said authority unless the rules provide for the same”.
The matter arose when a complaint was initially made against the petitioner, alleging that he had submitted a fake date of birth certificate at the time of his appointment. An enquiry was conducted, and while the Enquiry Committee recommended a stricter penalty, the competent authority, upon consideration of the report and the petitioner's explanation, chose to take a lenient view and issued a warning directing correction of the service record.
The petitioner thereafter furnished the correct date of birth certificate, and corresponding entries were made in the official records. In the meantime, a government circular granting amnesty to employees who corrected their date of birth records came into force, within the period of which the petitioner had already complied.
Despite the closure of the matter, fresh complaints were entertained and a second enquiry was initiated, culminating in the impugned order imposing a penalty of forfeiture of increments. Subsequently, a third enquiry was sought to be initiated on the same allegations by constituting another committee.
The Court began by noting that the factual position was undisputed that an enquiry had already been conducted and the competent authority had taken a conscious decision to administer only a warning instead of imposing a major penalty.
Rejecting the respondents' contention that the earlier enquiry was merely preliminary, the Court held that once the competent authority, after considering the enquiry report, chose not to initiate a regular departmental enquiry and instead concluded the matter with a warning, the decision attained finality. It was observed that such a decision necessarily implied that the authority had applied its mind to the material and deemed further proceedings unnecessary.
The Court emphasised that a disciplinary authority, while acting on an enquiry report, exercises quasi-judicial powers. It held that a “quasi-judicial authority has no power to review its own decision unless the rules provide for the same”.
Incidentally, the bench noted that under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, such authority cannot reopen or review its earlier decision.
Reinforcing this principle, the Court relied upon judicial precedents to hold that even an erroneous or lenient decision cannot be revisited unless expressly permitted by statute. It was observed that exoneration or closure of proceedings amounts to a quasi-judicial determination which cannot be altered at the will of the authority.
The Court further held that initiation of successive enquiries on the same set of allegations is impermissible, particularly when the earlier proceedings have culminated in a final decision. It noted that subjecting an employee to repeated enquiries on identical facts would amount to harassment and is contrary to settled principles of service jurisprudence.
Apart from the issue of review, the Court also found that the second enquiry itself was vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 33 of the Rules of 1956. It was observed that no charge-sheet had been framed or served upon the petitioner, and no opportunity was afforded to respond to the allegations, thereby rendering the enquiry fundamentally defective.
The High Court concluded that in the instant case, “the Rules of 1956 do not vest power of review in a disciplinary authority; therefore, howsoever bad a decision may have been taken by the disciplinary authority while letting off the petitioner with a warning, the disciplinary authority could not have reviewed the same at a later point of time”
The Court accordingly allowed both writ petitions and quashed the order dated 15.09.2011 imposing a penalty of forfeiture of two annual increments with cumulative effect.
The Court also quashed the decision dated 03.04.2013 constituting a fresh enquiry committee, holding that initiation of a third enquiry on the same allegations was impermissible.
Case Title: Ishfaq Ahmad Wani Vs Chairman Legislative Council & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)