UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus P.C. RAMAKRISHNAYYA

Citation: [2010] 10 S.C.R. 414 · Decided: 18-08-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 414 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
P.C. RAMAKRISHNAYYA 
(Civil Appeal no. 6743 of 2010) 
AUGUST 18, 2010 
[AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
Service Law - Departmental inquiry - Inquiry Officer 
appointed from a panel of retired officers prepared for the 
C purpose of holding departmental inquiries -
Validity of the 
inquiry challenged on the ground that a serving officer alone 
could be appointed as the Inquiry Officer -
Held: The 
challenge is not tenable - Under the Rules, a retired officer 
could also be appointed as the Inquiry Officer - Central Civil 
D Services (Classification; Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 -
rule 14(2). 
Judgment/Order - Pronouncement of - Tribunal relied 
upon a passage, purportedly from a decision of the Supreme 
E Court, which was quoted in the High Court order too -
However, no such passage existing in the said Supreme Court 
decision -
Held: The quoted passage was lifted from 
somewhere without proper verification from an approved law 
report - Regret expressed by Supreme Court at such cavalier 
attitude in making judicial pronouncements - Precedent. 
F 
Precedent - Citation of - To be verified from approved 
law reports - Law Reports. 
Disciplinary inquiry was held against the 
G respondent, an employee of the Geological Survey of 
India (GSI), under Rule 14(2) of the Central Civil Services 
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The 
inquiry was conducted by an Inquiry Officer, who was 
not a serving officer of the GSI but a retired Chief General 
H 
414 
UNION OF INDIAAND ORS. v. P.C. 
415 
RAMAKRISHNAYYA 
Manager of IDBI. The name of the Inquiry Officer was 
A 
taken from a panel of retired officers, prepared for the 
purpose of holding departmental inquiries, which was 
approved by the eentral Vigilance Commission. 
The respondent challenged the competence and 
8 
authority of the said Inquiry Officer to hold and conduct 
the departmental inquiry, contending that a serving officer 
alone could be appointed as Inquiry Officer, and did not 
take part in the departmental Inquiry. Consequently, ex-
parte inquiry was held in which the charges were found 
C 
established against the respondent (who had 
superannuated in the meanwhile) and he was given the 
punishment of cut in pension for 2 years. However, the 
Tribunal upheld the contention of the respondent, set 
aside the punishment order and remanded the matter to 
the disciplinary authority. The order passed by the 
D 
Tribunal was upheld by the High Court. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The question of validity of appointment of E 
a retired officer from a panel prepared for appointment of 
Inquiry Officers for holding departmental inquiry was 
examined in great detail in a recent decision of this Court 
in Alok Kumar. The decision in A/ok Kumar was rendered 
F 
in a case under rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline 
and Appeal) Rules, 1968 while the instant case arises fr.om 
Rule 14(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. The provisions of rule 
9(2) Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 
dealing with the appointment of inquiry officers are in pari 
materia with rule 14(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. In Alok 
Kumar, the Supreme Court considered in great detail, the 
G 
meaning of the word "authority" occurring in Rule 9(3) 
and came to find and hold that a retired officer could also 
be vested with the delegated authority of the Disciplinary 
Authority to hold the inquiry. The judgments of the 
Tribunal and the High Court are contrary to the correct 
H 
-
416 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2010] 10 S.C.R. 
A legal position and, therefore, cannot be sustained. (Paras 
11, 13 and 14] {422-B-D; 423-F; 424-E] 
Union of India & Ors. v. Alok Kumar, 2010 (5) SCC 349 
- relied on. 
B 
Ravi Malik vs. National Film Development Corporation 
Ltd. (2004) 13 sec 427 - referred to. 
2. There is a rather curious feature in the judgment 
passed by the Tribunal and the High Court. While 
c upholding the respondent's contention that a serving 
officer alone could be appointed as Inquiry Officer for 
holding a departmental inquiry under Rule 14(2) of the 
CCS (CCA) Rules, the Tribunal relied upon an extract 
purportedly from a decision of the Supreme Court in 
0 National High School's case, which was quoted in the 
High Court order too. However, in the said decision there 
. is no passage as attributed to it in the judgment passed 
by the Tribunal and the High Court. Had this mistake 
occurred only in the judgm

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.