Jitender Kumar vs Lt. Governor And Ors

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicant joined the Education Department of Delhi Administration in the year 1986, on having been appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in Hindi. He was also selected as Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) in the year 1989. Thereafter he was promoted as Vice Principal in 2005. In the DPC held in December, 2010, the applicant was selected as Principal, and he worked at various places in that capacity. On 01.12.2016, a raid was conducted against him on a complaint received, alleging that he was demanding money for clearing certain bills. Two FIRs were registered against him in the concerned police stations as a sequel to the raid, and the applicant was also arrested. Subsequently, he was granted bail. Taking into account, the fact that the applicant was arrested in a criminal case, the appointing authority placed him under suspension.

A charge-sheet was served upon the applicant and disciplinary proceedings were initiated. It is stated that the first inquiry officer retired from service even before any substantial progress was made, and the second inquiry officer had to be discontinued on a complaint as to bias made by the applicant. The third inquiry officer, Shri D. R. Tamta, a retired DANICS officer, was appointed by the disciplinary authority. The applicant took part in the proceedings before the inquiry officer to certain extent. However, he filed this OA challenging the very appointment of Shri Tamta as the inquiry officer.

The principal ground urged by the applicant is that while he is a Group 'A' officer, Shri Tamta, the inquiry officer, was only a Group 'B' officer in DANICS, and that the same is impermissible under the law, in particular under rule 14(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.

We heard Shri Rahul Rohatgi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant.

There is one basic infirmity in the OA itself. It is that though the appointment of Shri Tamta as inquiry officer has been challenged, he is not impleaded as a party in the OA. The same, however, cannot by itself lead to dismissal of the OA on that count.

The applicant is not able to cite any rule as to the conditions, which an individual must fulfil for being appointed as inquiry officer. It is general practice that an inquiry officer is required to be one, who is superior in rank to the delinquent officer. If the inquiry officer and the charged officer are in service in the same organization, it would not be difficult to verify this position. Where, however, an outsider or a retired employee is appointed as the inquiry officer, the manner in which the verification must be undertaken needs to be somewhat different.

The applicant is proceeding on the assumption that the service in the Education Department of the Delhi Administration and the DANICS service is on par with each other. On that assumption, he is pleading that the inquiry officer who held a Group 'B' post in DANICS, is inferior to him, as he is a Group 'A' officer. The organization in which the applicant is working, on the one hand, and the one where the inquiry officer, Shri D. R. Tamta, worked, on the other hand, are totally different. It is not even mentioned that the pay scale of the inquiry officer, while he was in service, was less than the one in which the applicant is working. Therefore, the contention raised by the applicant cannot be accepted.

The inquiry is already delayed on account of repeated change of inquiry officers. It cannot be delayed any further. The OA is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.