No Further Enquiry Can Be Ordered Unless A Case Is Made Out: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Chairman of Central Board of Direct Taxes challenging an order of Central Administrative Tribunal's whereby it quashed the 'charge sheet' in the disciplinary enquiry against Assistant Income Tax Commissioner and directed it to hold 'Review DPC' within two months to consider her case for promotion.

A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice G Basavaraja dismissed the petition and said “Enquiry Officer has already found her 'not guilty' vide report dated 14.03.2014. Therefore she cannot be subjected to any 'further enquiry'. An argument to the contrary falls foul of fair play and established canons in the realm of law.”

The authority contended that criminal court's order acquitting the respondent-employee does not have the trappings of honourable acquittal and therefore the disciplinary proceedings could not have been quashed; the Enquiry Report having not been found satisfactory, further enquiry was directed on 05.12.2017 and accordingly the report finding the employee guilty has been submitted; there is no bar for soliciting the views of Chief Vigilance Commissioner on matters of the kind; that being the position, the Tribunal is not justified in quashing the charge sheet.

The employee opposed the plea saying “The order of the Criminal Court convicting the respondent has been reversed by a learned Single Judge of this court with a specific finding as to there being no 'demand & acceptance'; this order, on challenge in a Civil Appeal, the Apex Court declined interference; the prosecution material & pertinent witnesses were the same in the disciplinary enquiry; the Enquiry Report dated 14.03.2014 had found the employee 4 'not guilty'; strangely, further enquiry was directed and without holding any further enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a contradictory report now holding the employee guilty; in any circumstance, what the Tribunal has done perfectly accords with established canons of service jurisprudence.”

On going through the single judge bench order the bench said “The findings as to complaint being 'false', as to the lack of motive, as to the absence of demand & acceptance, the assessment order having already been passed & officially communicated to the assessee and the entire story of the prosecution being 'knocked at its bottom', leave no manner of doubt that the respondent has established a clear cut case of honourable acquittal.”

Noting that the Enquiry Officer after adverting to the findings in the acquittal order in the criminal case had framed the report of 'not guilty' and had submitted the same on 14.03.2014. It said “True it is that such a report does not bind the disciplinary authority, and he may disagree with the findings in the report. It is also open to him to direct 'further enquiry' too, under Rule 15(1) of Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.”

The court rejected the submission of learned ASG that subsequently the Enquiry Officer pursuant to further enquiry has submitted a Report finding the employee 'guilty'. It said “Firstly, no 'further enquiry' can be ordered unless a case is made out for the invocation of Rule 15(1). Secondly, what additional evidence was generated in the so called 'further enquiry' or that which additional witness was examined is not forthcoming from the pleadings or the record. Thirdly, not even a bus-ticket-size-paper is also not produced to show that any 'further enquiry' was ever held. Even to discredit assertion of the respondent that the notice of such enquiry was not given to her till date, absolutely no material is placed on record by the petitioners.”

Observing that “Our Constitution expects all Article 12 – Entities to be fair & reasonable in their action. The Governments should conduct themselves as model employers, is a constitutional imperative. The action of the petitioners in somehow endeavouring to continue the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent employee runs counter to all this, to say the least. The disciplinary authority cannot go on holding enquiry after enquiry against an employee till the desired report is given by the Enquiry Officer.”

The court said “In the absence of a prima facie demonstration of further enquiry, the subsequent report finding the employee 'guilty', cannot come to the aid of petitioners for voiding the Tribunal's order.”

It added “The CVC, cannot influence the decision making at various stages of disciplinary proceedings, in the absence of statutory enablement. As adding salt to the injury, the said proceedings, if at all held, were behind the back of the employee. All that is impermissible.”

Accordingly it dismissed the petition.

Appearance: Additional Solicitor General Arvind Kamath A/W CGC B Pramod for Petitioner.

Senior Advocate S S Naganand FOR Advocate Aravind V Chavan for Respondent

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 185

Case Title: Chairman Central Board Of Direct Taxes AND K Chandrika

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.4730 OF 2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order