VIJAY SHANKAR PANDEY versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [2014] 13 S.C.R. 1238 · Decided: 22-09-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 13 S.C.R. 1238 
VIJAY SHANKAR PANDEY 
V. 
UNION OF INDIA&ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 9043 of2014) 
SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND A. K. SIKRI, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
c 
All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 - rr. 3, 7, 8 
and 17 -
Disciplinary action -
Charge sheet against 
appel/ant-IAS officer for violation of the Conduct Rules -
Challenged to, by appellant -Application dismissed by the 
tribunal, however, writ petition before the High Court withdrawn 
0 
by the appellant -
Subsequently, appellant though 
exonerated of the charges by the Enquiry Officer, the 
Government rejected the report submitted by the Enquiry 
Officer since there were allegations against the appellant for 
criticising the Government on black money issue in the writ 
E petition filed through the appellant before the Supreme Court 
- Order passed for constitution of two member Inquiry Board 
to again enquire into the charges framed - Writ petition by 
the appellant challenging the order- Dismissed by the High 
Court - On appeal, held: The fact that the report submitted 
F by the Enquiring Authority is not acceptable to the disciplinary 
authority, is not a ground for completely setting aside the 
enquiry report and ordering a second Enquiry- Court is at a 
loss to comprehend how the filing of the writ petition containing 
allegations that the Government of India is lax in discharging 
G its constitutional obligations of establishing the rule of law 
can be said to amount to either failure to maintain absolute-
integrity and devotion to duty or of indulging in conduct 
unbecoming of a member of the service - Order rejecting 
the enquiry report, is wholly untenable -
Impugned 
proceedings is a strategy to intimidate not only the appellant 
H 
1238 
VIJAY SHANKAR PANDEYv. UNION OF INDIA &ANR. 
1239 
but also to send a signal to others who might dare in future to A 
expose any mal~administration - Right to judicial remedies 
for-the redressal of either personal or public grievances is a 
constitutional right of the subjects (both citizens and non-
citizens) of this country - Employees of the State cannot 
become members of a different and inferior class to whom B 
such right is not available - Respondents liablejointly and 
severally to pay Rupees Five Lakhs as costs - All India 
Seiylces (Discipline and Conduct) Rules, 1969 - rr. 8(15), 
(16\(20) and (24)- Costs. 
, .!Allowing the appe_al, the Court 
c 
HELD: 1.1 The normal rule is that there can be only 
one Enquiry. In *K.R. Deb case, this Court has also 
recognized the possibility of a further enquiry in certain 
circumstances enumerated therein. The· decision 0 
however makes it clear that the fact that the Report 
· submitted by the Enquiring Authority is not acceptable 
to the d_isciplinary authority, is not a ground for 
completely setting aside the enquiry report and ordering 
a second Enquiry. [Para 23][1254•C-E] 
E 
1.2 In the order whereby the State rejected 'he enquiry 
report, the reasons recorded by the respondent for 
ordering a fresh inquiry by a Board, - that the Inquiry 
Report dated 301h August, 2012 is cursory; the inquiry 
was conducted in violation of Rules 8(15), (16), (20)and F 
(24) of the All India Services (Discipline and Conduct) 
Rules, 1969; the contents of Writ Petition (C) No. 37 of 
2010 on the file of this Court constitutes a criticism of 
the Central Government, and therefore, is a clear violation 
of Rule 3(1 ), Rule 7, 8(1) and 17 of the All India Services G 
(Conduct) Rules, 1968; and that the Inquiry Officer failed 
to properly investigate the "facts before submitting his 
report, are all untenable. [Para 26, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38) 
[1254-G-H; 1255-A-C] 
H 
1240 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 13 S.C.R. 
A 1.3 The Court is at a loss to comprehend how the filing 
of the writ petition containing allegations that the 
Government of India is lax in discharging its 
constitutional obligations of establishing the rule oflaw 
can be said to amount to either failure to maintain 
B absolute integrity and devotion to duty or of indulging 
in conduct unbecoming of a member of the service. Even 
otherwise, the order rejecting the equiry report, is wholly 
untenable. The purpose behind the proceedings appears 
calculated to harass the appellant since he dared to point 
c out certain aspects of mal-administration in the 
· Government of India. The action of the respondents is 
consistent with their conduct clearly recorded in the case 
of **Ram Jethmalani & Ot

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