Vijay Shankar Pandey Vs Union of India & Anr

Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9043 OF 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) NO.12019 of 2014)

Vijay Shankar Pandey … Appellant

Versus

Union of India & Another … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

CHELAMESWAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The unsuccessful petitioner in the Writ Petition

No.87(S/B)/2014 on the file of the High court of Allahabad is

the appellant herein. By the impugned judgment dated

3.4.2014 the said writ petition was dismissed by a Division

Bench of the Allahabad High Court.

1

Page 2

3. The appellant is an officer of the Indian

Administrative Service. On 22.7.2011 he was served with a

chargesheet consisting of five charges. All the charges are

to the effect that the conduct of the appellant is contrary to

Rule-3, 7, 8 and 17 of The All India Services (Conduct) Rules,

1968 (hereinafter called “CONDUCT Rules”). After certain

correspondence, (the details of which are not necessary for

the present purpose), the disciplinary authority appointed an

Enquiry Officer on 27.2.2012. The appellant submitted his

reply on 5.3.2012. The appellant challenged the chargesheet

before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.623 of

2012 which was eventually dismissed on 29.8.2012.

Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a writ petition in

the Allahabad High Court but withdrew the same

subsequently. The order of the Central Administrative

Tribunal became final.

4. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on

30.8.2012 exonerating the appellant of all the charges. The

copy of the said report is not served on him. 2

Page 3

5. On 9.9.2012, the meeting of a Selection

Committee for considering the cases of officers of the Indian

Administrative Service for promotion to the Super Time

Scale-II (ASTS-II) was held. The case of the appellant was

considered and the decision was kept in a sealed cover. The

appellant, therefore, submitted a representation to the Chief

Secretary of the State of Uttar Pradesh on 11.9.2012

requesting that in view of exoneration by the Enquiry Officer,

he be promoted to the Super Time Scale-II (ASTS-II). As

there was no response to the representation, he approached

the Central Administrative Tribunal on 26.9.2012 once again

in O.A.No.381 of 2012 with prayer as follows:

“a) to issue an order or direction commanding the respondents to take a final decision on the enquiry report which has already been submitted by the enquiry officer;

b) to issue an order or direction commanding the respondents open the sealed cover of the recommendations of the selection committee and to forthwith issue promotion orders in respect of the applicant;

c) Such other orders as this Tribunal may deem just, fit and proper be also passed in the interest of justice.”

On the same day 26.9.2012, an order (hereinafter referred 3

Page 4

to as the “IMPUGNED Order”) invoking Rule 8(3) of the All

India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969

(hereinafter referred to as “DISCIPLINE Rules”) came to be

passed by the State of U.P. rejecting the Enquiry Report

dated 30.8.2012 (referred to supra). The relevant portion of

the order reads as under:

“2. Enquiry Officer Sri Jagan Mathews sent the enquiry report vide his letter dated 30.08.2012. On examining the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer at government level it was found that the Enquiry Officer had submitted a cursory report without observing the mandate of Rules -8(15), 8(16), 8(20) and 8(24) of All India Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969 as criticism has been leveled in the writ petiion of the Central Government filed through Sri Vijay Shankar Pandey before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as such it is a clear violation of Rule-3(1), Rule-7, Rule-8(1) and Rule-17 of the All India Service (Conduct) Rules, 1968. Therefore the Enquiry Officer has failed to properly investigate the facts in the enquiry proceedings.

3. Therefore, in the matter of Sri Vijay Shankar Pandey IAS-1979, the Hon'ble Governor, after rejecting the enquiry report of Enquiry Officer, Sri Jagan Mathews, constitute in his place a 2 member Inquiry Board under sub-rule (3) of Rule-8 of All India Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969, comprising of Sri Alok Ranjan, Agricultural Production Commissioner, Govt. of U.P. and Sri Anil Kumar Gupta, Infrastructure and Industrial Commissioner, Govt. of U.P. in order to enquire into the charsges imposed against him.”

6. Challenging the order dated 26.9.2012, the

4

Page 5

appellant again approached the Central Administrative

Tribunal by filing an O.A.No.395/2012. The earlier

O.A.No.381/2012 was dismissed by the Central

Administrative Tribunal on 16.4.2013 on the ground that it

had become infructuous. O.A.No.395/2012 was also

dismissed on 20.12.2013 with certain directions. The later

decision was challenged by the appellant herein in Writ

Petition No.87(S/B) of 2014, in which the order under appeal

herein (hereinafter referred to as the Order under APPEAL)

came to be passed dismissing the writ petition.

7. The background facts of this case are that a Writ

Petition (C) No.37 of 2010 titled “Julio F. Ribero and others

vs. Govt. of India including the appellant herein, came to be

filed under the name and style of India Rejuvination

Initiative, a non-Government Organisation (NGO). The said

Writ Petition along with another culminated in a judgment of

this Court in Ram Jethmalani & Others v. Union of India

& Others, (2011) 8 SCC 1. All the charges against the

appellant are in connection with the filing of the said Writ

Petition on the ground that the conduct of the petitioner is 5

Page 6

violative of the various CONDUCT Rules. Charge No.1 is on

account of certain statements made in the said Writ Petition

against certain senior officers of the Government of India.

The second charge is that the appellant failed to comply

with the requirement of Rule 13 of the CONDUCT Rules

whereunder he is obliged to give information to the

respondent within one month of becoming a member of the

such organization (NGO). The third and the fourth charges

are based on the allegation made in the Writ Petition (Civil)

No.37 of 2010. The substance of the charges is that those

allegations tantamount to criticism of the action of the

Central as well as State Governments and of giving evidence

without the previous sanction of the government and,

6

Page 7

therefore, contravention of Rules 71 and 82 respectively of

the CONDUCT Rules. Charge No.5 is that the appellant

violated Rule 173 of the CONDUCT Rules.

Charge No.1

1 Rule 7. Criticism of Government.—No member of the Service shall, in any Radio Broadcast or communication over any public media or in any document published anonymously, pseudonymously or in his own name or in the name of any other person or in any communication to the press or in any public utterance, make any statement of fact or opinion,—

i. Which has the effect of an adverse criticism of any current or recent policy or action of the Central Government or a State Government; or

ii. which is capable of embarrassing the relations between the Central Government and any State Government; or

iii. which is capable of embarrassing the relations between the Central Government and the Government of any Foreign State:

Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to any statement made or views expressed by a member of the service in his official capacity and in the due performance of the duties assigned to him.

2 Rule 8 Evidence before committees, etc.—(1) Save as provided in sub-rule (3), no member of the Service shall except with the previous sanction of the Government, give evidence in connection with any inquiry conducted by any person, committee or other authority.

(2) Where any sanction has been accorded under sub-rule (1) no member of the service giving such evidence shall criticize the policy or any action of the Central Government or of a State Government.

(3) Nothing in this rule shall apply to— (a) evidence given at any inquiry before an authority appointed by the

Government, or by Parliament or by a State Legislature; or (b) evidence given in any judicial inquiry; or (c) evidence given at departmental inquiry ordered by any authority

subordinate to the Government. (4) No member of the Service giving any evidence referred to in sub-

rule (3) shall give publicity to such evidence.

3 Rule 17. Vindication of acts and character of members of the service:—No member of the service shall, except with the previous sanction of the Government have recourse to any court or to the press for the vindication of official act which has been the subject-matter of adverse criticism or attack of a defamatory character.

Provided that if no such sanction is conveyed to by the Government within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the request, the member of the service shall be free to assume that the sanction sought for has been granted to him.

7

Page 8

Writ Petition No.37(Civil)/2010 Julio F. Ribero and Others v. Govt. of India and others has been filed through India Rejuvenation Initiative, NGO before the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein you are also a petitioner. In the aforementioned writ petition on behalf of the petitioners (which also included you) an additional affidavit has been filed by Sri Jasbeer Singh wherein para 4 of the allegations made by Sri S.K. Dubey against senior officers of the Enforcement Directorate in his letter to the Hon’ble Prime Minister have been endorsed, which was not expected of you being a member of the All India Services.

This conduct of yours is contrary to Rule-3 of the All India Service (Conduct) Rules, 1968 and you have violated the aforesaid rule.

Charge No.2

Before becoming member of the institution named India Rejuvenation Initiative, you did not inform the government, whereas as per Rule-13 of the All India Service (Conduct) Rules–1968 information is to be given within one month of becoming a member.

This conduct of yours is contrary to Rule-3 of the All India Service (Conduct) Rules-1968 and you have violated the aforesaid rule.

Charge No.3

In the writ petition No.37(Civil)/2010 Julio F. Ribero and others v. Govt. of India and others filed by you before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by way of an additional affidavit filed by the petitioners (which also included you), senior officers of the Government of India were criticized, whereas the members of the All India Service are prohibited from criticizing, in the media or in the press, the actions of both the Central as well as the State Government, either in their own or in another person’s name. as such you violated Rule-7 of the All India Service (Conduct) Rules-1968.

Explanation.—Nothing in this rule shall be deemed to prohibit a member of the Service from vindicating his private character or any act done by him in his private capacity. Provided that he shall submit a report to the Government regarding such action.

8

Page 9

This conduct of yours is contrary to Rule-3 of the All India Service (Conduct) Rules-1968 and you have violated the aforesaid rule.

Charge No.4

In Writ Petition No.37(Civil)/2010 Julio F. Ribero and Others v. Govt. of India and others filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by way of an additional affidavit filed by the petitioners (which also includes), officers of the Enforcement Directorate of Government of India were criticized, whereas as per Rule-8 of the All India Service (Conduct) Rules-1968, members of the All India Service are not allowed to depose in any enquiry wherein the Central or the State government may be criticized.

This conduct of yours is contrary to Rule-3 of the All India Service (Conduct) Rules-1968 and you have violated the aforesaid rule.

Charge No.5

In Writ Petition No.37(Civil)/2010 Julio F. Ribero and Others v. Govt. of India and others filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no permission of the State Government was sought for filing the additional affidavit which was filed by the petitioners (which also includes you), whereas members of the All India Service are not allowed to give any such information without prior permission of either the Central or the State Government which brings disregard to the Central or the State Government. As such you failed to observe Rule-17 of the All India Service (Conduct) Rules, 1968.

This kind of your conduct is against Rule-3 of the All India Service (Conduct) Rules-1968 and you are guilty for violating the aforesaid provision.

8. The appellant herein never disputed the fact that

he was one of the petitioners in Writ Petition (Civil)

No.37/2010 (referred to supra) nor did he disown statements

(allegations) made in the said writ petition. The Enquiry

9

Page 10

Officer exonerated the appellant of all the charges. The

second respondent rejected the report of the Enquiry Officer

on two grounds; that the Enquiry Officer submitted a

cursory report without observing the mandate of Rules-

8(15), 8(16), 8(20) and 8(24) of the DISCIPLINE Rules; and

failed to properly investigate the facts. Interestingly, the

IMPUGNED order, states that the conduct of the appellant as

recorded in the charge-sheet “is in clear violation of Rules-

3(1), 7, 8(1) and 17 of 1969 Rules”. Therefore, the second

respondent ordered to constitute a two member Inquiry

Board to again enquire into the charges framed against the

appellant.

9. Mr. Pallav Shishodia, learned senior counsel appearing

on behalf of the appellant attacked the IMPUGNED order

dated 26.09.2012 on two grounds:

(A) That invocation of Rule 8(3) of the DISCIPLINE

Rules is wholly illegal. It is submitted that the said rule

only enables the State to make a choice between the

two courses of action available in case it decides to

conduct an enquiry contemplated under the rules; 10

Page 11

(i) Appointing an officer to enquire into the

misconduct of the Public Servant; or

(ii) Appoint an authority or board under the Public

Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850.

10. It is further submitted that the State cannot resort to

the provisions of the 1850 Act after having had appointed an

Enquiry Officer under the DISCIPLINE Rules merely because

the State is not able to agree with the report submitted by

the Enquiry Officer.

11. Learned senior counsel further argued that the reason

given (by the State for rejecting the Enquiry Officer’s report)

that the enquiry was conducted in violation of the mandate

contained in Rules-8(15), 8(16), 8(20) and 8(24) of

DISCIPLINE Rules, is wholly unsustainable in law - for the

reason that the Order dated 26.9.2012 fails to specify the

exact violations of above mentioned rules, committed by the

Enquiry Officer. On the other hand, none of these provisions

are attracted in the case on hand as each one of the above

mentioned rules pertain to the procedure to be followed

11

Page 12

while conducting an enquiry. Rules 8 (15) and 8(16) of the

DISCIPLINE Rules, incorporate the rule of audi altem partem

to enable both the delinquent officer as well as the State to

adduce evidence in support of their respective stands on the

various charges set out in the chargesheet. Rule 8(20) of

the 1969 Rules only enables the Enquiry Officer to either

receive written briefs or hear both the Presenting Officer and

the delinquent. The Rule does not mandate either causes of

the action unless the parties desire so. It is not the case of

the State at any stage that the Presenting Officer either

wanted to be heard in person or to file a written brief,

therefore, there cannot be any infraction of Rule 8(20) of the

1969 Rules. Lastly, it is submitted that Rule 8(24) of the

DISCIPLINE Rules only prescribed the format in which the

report is to be submitted. The non-compliance, if any, with

the format (because the appellant is unable to make any

submission as the copy of the report itself is not made

available to the appellant), is not fatal to the validity of the

report. According to the learned counsel Rule 8 (24) of the

DISCIPLINE Rules is to be construed only as recommendatory

12

Page 13

but not as mandatory.

(B) The ultimate conclusion of the State in rejecting

the Enquiry Report dated 30.08.2012 is that the

“Enquiry Officer has failed to properly investigate the

FACTS”. The learned counsel submitted that there are

no facts in dispute which require to be investigated. All

facts alleged in the chargesheet against the appellant

are admitted by the appellant. The Enquiry Officer is

required only to record a conclusion whether, in his

opinion, the admitted facts constitute any misconduct

under any of the CONDUCT Rules referred to in the

chargesheet.

12. On the other hand, Shri K.V. Vishwanathan, learned

senior counsel for the respondent submitted that the Order

under APPEAL does not call for any interference as the order

of the Enquiry Officer is in utter non-compliance with Rule

8(15), (16), (20) and (24) of the DISCIPLINE Rules. Learned

counsel also submitted that the decision of the State is well

within the authority conferred under Rule 8, sub-Rule (3) of

13

Page 14

the DISCIPLINE Rules.

13. The Division Bench based its conclusion, that the

IMPUGNED order dated 26.9.2012 cannot be faulted, on two

factors. They are:

(i) that the Enquiry Officer submitted his Report dated

30.8.2012 without following the procedure prescribed by

law under Rule 8 of the DISCIPLINE Rules; (ii) More

interestingly, the High Court accepted the submission on

behalf of the State that the initial order of the appointment

of Enquiry Officer under Rule 8 is unsustainable in law. Such

a flaw was realized by the State only at the stage of

considering the said Enquiry Officer’s report.

14. The High Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that

the State Government is justified in law to appoint a Board of

Enquiry, contemplated under Rule 8(3) of the DISCIPLINE

Rules.

15. Now, we proceed to consider the submissions.

16. The first submission of the appellant is to be examined 14

Page 15

in the light of Rule 8(1), (2) and (3) of the DISCIPLINE Rules.

Rule 8 as far as is relevant is extracted:

Rule 8. Procedure for imposing major penalties – (1) No order imposing any of the major penalties specified in Rule 6 shall be made except after an inquiry is held as far as may be, in the manner provided in this rule and Rule 10, or, provided by the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 (37 of 1850) where such inquiry is held under that Act.

(2) Whenever the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against a member of the Service, it may appoint under this rule or under the provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, as the case may be, an authority to inquire into the truth thereof.

(3) Where a Board is appointed as the inquiring authority it shall consist of not less than two senior officers provided that at least one member of such a Board shall be an officer of the service to which the member of the service belongs.

17. It is apparent that Rule 8(1) prohibits imposition of any

major penalty without holding an enquiry either in

accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Rules or

under the provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act,

1850.

18. Rule 8(2) specifically authorises the disciplinary

authority to appoint an authority to enquire into the truth of

any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against a

member of the service if the disciplinary authority is of the

15

Page 16

opinion that there are grounds to inquire into. Such an

authority could be appointed either in exercise of the power

conferred under Rules or under provisions of the Public

Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850.

19. Rule 8(3) contemplates appointment of a Board as an

Inquiring Authority and stipulates that such Board shall

consist of not less than two senior officers of whom at least

one should be an officer of the service to which the

delinquent officer belongs. The expression “Board” is not

defined under the Rules. The only conclusion that can be

drawn from the scheme of Rules 8 (2) & (3) is that the

expression ‘Enquiring Authority’ implies either a single

member authority or Board consisting of two or more

members.

20. All the parties - the appellant, the respondents and the

Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court

proceeded on the basis that the IMPUGNED order

constituting a two member Enquiry Board under Rule 8(3) of

the DISCIPLINE Rules is an order constituting such a Board

16

Page 17

under the provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act,

1850. We do not see any basis for such a conclusion. The

IMPUGNED order nowhere refers to the Public Servants

(Inquiries) Act, nor there is anything in Rule 8(3) which

suggests that whenever a multi-member Board is appointed

as an Enquiring Authority, such a Board could be appointed

only under provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act.

The language of Rule 8(2) is wide enough to enable the

disciplinary authority to appoint either a single member

Enquiring Authority or a multi-member Board to inquire into

the misconduct of a delinquent officer.

21. Be that as it may, the question is whether the

disciplinary authority could have resorted to such a practice

of abandoning the Enquiry already undertaken and resort to

appointment of a fresh Enquiring Authority (multi-member).

The issue is not really whether the Enquiring Authority

should be a single member or a multi member body, but

whether a second inquiry such as the one under challenge is

permissible. A Constitution Bench of this Court in K.R. Deb

v. The Collector of Central Excise, Shillong, (1971) 2 17

Page 18

SCC 102, examined the question in the context of Rule 15(1)

of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and

Appeal) Rules, 1957. It was a case where an enquiry was

ordered against a sub-Inspector, Central Excise (the

appellant before this Court). The inquiry officer held that

the charge was not proved. Thereafter the disciplinary

authority appointed another inquiry officer “to conduct a

supplementary open inquiry”. Such supplementary inquiry

was conducted and a report that there was “no conclusive

proof” to “establish the charge” was made. Not satisfied,

the disciplinary authority thought it fit that “another inquiry

officer should be appointed to inquire afresh into the

charge”.

22. The Court held that:

“12. It seems to us that Rule 15, on the face of it, really provides for one inquiry but it may be possible if in a particular case there has been no proper enquiry because some serious defect has crept into the inquiry or some important witnesses were not available at the time of the inquiry or for some other reason, the Disciplinary Authority may ask the Inquiry Officer to record further evidence. But there is no provision in Rule 15 for completely setting aside previous inquiries on the ground that the report of the Inquiring Officer or Officers does not appeal to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority has enough powers to reconsider the evidence itself and come to its own conclusion under Rule 9.

18

Page 19

13. In our view the rules do not contemplate an action such as was taken by the Collector on February 13, 1962. It seems to us that the Collector, instead of taking responsibility himself, was determined to get some officer to report against the appellant. The procedure adopted was not only not warranted by the rules but was harassing to the appellant.”

(Emphasis supplied)

and allowed the appeal of K.R. Deb.

23. It can be seen from the above that the normal rule is

that there can be only one Enquiry. This Court has also

recognized the possibility of a further Enquiry in certain

circumstances enumerated therein. The decision however

makes it clear that the fact that the Report submitted 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.

24. The scheme of Rule 8 of the DISCIPLINE Rules and Rule

15 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and

Appeal) Rules, 1965 are similar. Therefore, the principle laid

down in Deb’s case, in our opinion, would squarely apply to

the case on hand.

25. Therefore, it becomes necessary for us to examine the

19

Page 20

legality of the IMPUGNED order in the light of the law laid

down in Deb’s case i.e. whether a further enquiry is really

warranted on the facts of the case. We shall proceed for the

purpose of this case that such further enquiry need not be by

the same officer who initially constituted an enquiring

authority and could be by a multi-member board.

26. The respondents recorded four reasons for ordering a

fresh inquiry by a Board, under the IMPUGNED order.

(i) The Inquiry Report dated 30th August, 2012 is

cursory.

(ii) The inquiry was conducted in violation of

Rules 8(15), (16), (20) and (24) of the

DISCIPLINE Rules.

(iii) 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 CONDUCT Rules.

(iv) That the Inquiry Officer failed to properly

investigate the facts before submitting his 20

Page 21

report.

27. The legality of the IMPUGNED order depends on the

tenability of the above. We shall deal with the last of the

above-mentioned four reasons:

4 th Reason :

It is an absolutely untenable ground, since there was

nothing for the Enquiry Officer to investigate regarding the

facts of the various allegations in the charge-sheet. The

appellant herein never disputed the factual correctness of

the allegations. He admitted that he was a petitioner in Writ

Petition (C) No. 37 (supra). He never disowned any one of

the allegations made in the said Writ Petition. Therefore,

there were no facts to be investigated into.

Ist Reason:

Coming to the first reason - that the report is a cursory

report. A copy of the report is not made available to the

appellant. The content of the said report is not known. The

only admitted fact about the report is that the appellant was

exonerated of all the charges made against him. If such a 21

Page 22

conclusion is otherwise justified, whether the report is

cursory or elaborate, should make no difference to the

legality of the report. What matters is the correctness of the

conclusions recorded, not the length or the elegance of the

language of the report which determines the legality of the

conclusions recorded in it. Therefore this ground is equally

untenable.

2nd Reason:

The second reason stated is that the Enquiry Officer did

not observe the mandate of Rule 8(15), (16) and (24) of the

DISCIPLINE Rules. We deem it appropriate to examine the

content and scope of these rules4 and record our conclusion

4 (15) On the date fixed for the inquiry, the oral and documentary evidence by which the articles of charge are proposed to be proved shall be produced by, on behalf of, the disciplinary authority. The witness shall be examined by, or on behalf of, the Presenting Officer and may be cross-examined by, or on behalf of, the member of the Service. The Presenting Officer shall be entitled to re-examine the witnesses on any points, on which they have been cross-examined, but not on any new matter, without the leave of the inquiring authority. The inquiring authority may also put such questions to the witnesses as it thinks fit.

(16) If it shall appear necessary before the close of the case on behalf of the disciplinary authority, the inquiring authority may, in its discretion, allow the Presenting Officer to produce evidence not included in the list given to the member of the Service or may itself call for new evidence or recall and re-examine any witness and, in such case, the member of the Service shall be entitled to have, if he demands it, a copy of the list of further evidence proposed to be produced and an adjournment of the inquiry for three clear days before the production of such new evidence, exclusive of the day of adjournment and the day to which the inquiry is adjourned. The inquiring authority shall give to the member of the Service an opportunity of inspecting such documents before they are taken on the record. The inquiring authority may also allow the member of the Service to produce new evidence, if it is of opinion that the production of such evidence is necessary in the interests of justice.

NOTE.- New evidence shall not be permitted or called for or any witness shall not be recalled to fill up any gap in the evidence. Such evidence may be called for only when there is an inherent lacuna or defect in the evidence which has been produced originally.

22

Page 23

regarding the applicability of each of the rules to the facts of

the case on hand.

28. Rule 8(15) provides that both the oral and documentary

evidence by which the articles of charge are proposed to be

proved by the disciplinary authority shall be produced on the

date fixed for the Enquiry; witnesses on behalf of the

disciplinary authority may be examined both in chief as well

as cross etc. It is obvious from the Rule that the rule

cannot have any application where the delinquent officer

admits the correctness of the factual allegations against him.

29. Rule 8(16) speaks of adducing additional evidence and

the procedure thereof. For the reasons mentioned in the

context of sub-Rule (15), sub-Rule (16) will equally have no

application, where the delinquent officer does not contest

the factual correctness of the allegations made against him.

30. Rule 8(20)5 enables the Enquiring authority to hear both

the presenting officer on behalf of the disciplinary authority

5 Rule 8(20). The inquiring authority may, after the completing of the production of evidence, hear the Presenting Officer, if any appointed, and the member of the Service or permit them to file written briefs of their respective cases, if they so desire.

23

Page 24

and the delinquent officer, after recording of the evidence is

complete. In addition, it enables the Enquiring Authority to

permit written briefs by both the parties, in case they desire

so.

31. Application of Rule 20 thus depends upon the existence

of two factors.

(i) the appointment of a presenting officer.

(ii) the presenting officer desires to file a written brief.

32. We could not find any categorical assertion on the

record by the State that a presenting officer was in fact

appointed and such officer desired to file a written brief or

make oral submissions, but was prevented from doing so by

the Enquiring Authority. Therefore, even this reason must

fail.

33. Coming to Rule 8(24), the sub-Rule reads as follows:-

“(24)(i) After the conclusion of the inquiry, a report shall be prepared and it shall contain-

(a) the articles of charge and the statement of imputa- tions of misconduct or misbehaviour;

(b) the defence of the member of the Service in respect of each article of charge;

24

Page 25

(c) an assessment of the evidence in respect of each arti- cle of charge; and

(d) the findings on each article of charge and the reasons therefor.

Explanation.-If in the opinion of the inquiring authority the proceedings of the inquiry establish any article of charge different from the original articles of charge, it may record its findings on such article of charge.

Provided that the findings on such article of charge shall not be recorded unless the member of the Service has either admitted the facts on which such article of charge is based or has had a reasonable opportunity of defending himself against such article of charge.

(ii) The inquiring authority shall forward to the disciplinary authority the records of inquiry which shall include-

(a) the report prepared by it under clause (i);

(b) the written statement of defence, if any, submitted by the member of the Service;

(c) the oral and documentary evidence produced in the course of the inquiry;

(d) written briefs, if any, filed by the Presenting Officer or the member of the Service or both during the course of the inquiry; and

(e) the orders, if any, made by the disciplinary authority and the inquiring authority in regard to the inquiry.”

34. It stipulates as to what should be the content of the

report. From a reading of the above Rule, it is clear that the

rule will have virtually no application to a case where the

delinquent employee does not dispute the factual

25

Page 26

correctness of the allegations contained in the articles of

charge. Therefore, it follows that this reason also is wholly

untenable.

3 rd Reason :

Coming to the 3rd reason given in the IMPUGNED Order

that the content of the Writ Petition (C) No. 37 of 2010 is

critical of the Government of India, and therefore, violative of

Rule 3(1), 7, 8(1) and 17 of the CONDUCT Rules, we are of

the opinion that this ground is equally untenable.

35. Rule 17 of the CONDUCT Rules reads as follows:

“17. Vindication of acts and character of members of the service.—No member of the service shall, except with the previous sanction of the Government, have recourse to any Court or to the press for the vindication of official act which has been the subject-matter of adverse criticism or attack of a defamatory character.

Provided that if no such sanction is conveyed to by the Government within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the request, the member of service shall be free to assume that the sanction sought for has been granted to him.

Explanation.—Nothing in this rule shall be deemed to prohibit a member of the Service from vindicating his private character or any act done by him in his private capacity. Provided that he shall submit a report to the Government regarding such action.”

We fail to understand how this Rule could be said to have

been violated, in the background of the allegations contained

26

Page 27

in the charges framed against the appellant. In our opinion,

this rule has no application whatsoever to the allegations

contained in the charge-sheet. The rule only prohibits a

member of the service from having recourse either to a

Court or to the press for vindication of the official acts of

such member which have been the subject matter of

adverse criticism or a defamatory attack. It is not the

content of any one of the charges against the appellant that

he sought to vindicate any one of his official acts by filing WP

(C) No. 37 of 2010.

36. Rule 7 of the Conduct Rules reads as follows:

“7. Criticism of Government.—No member of the service shall, in any Radio Broadcast or communication over any public media or in any document published anonymously, pseudonymously or in his own name or in the name of any other person or in any communication to the press or in any public utterance, make any statement of fact or opinion—

(i) which has the effect of an adverse criticism of any current or recent policy or action of the Central Government or a State Government; or

(ii) which is capable of embarrassing the relations between the Central Government and any State Government; or

(iii) which is capable of embarrassing the relations between the Central Government and the Government of any Foreign State:

Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to any statement made or views expressed by a member of the service in

27

Page 28

his official capacity and in the due performance of the duties assigned to him.”

37. Clearly this Rule only prohibits criticism of the policies

of the Government or making of any statement which is

likely to embarrass the relations between the Government of

India and a Foreign State or the Government of India and the

Government of a State. Allegations of mal-administration, in

our opinion, do not fall within the ambit of any of the

abovementioned three categories. The entire burden of

song in the Writ Petition (C) No.37 of 2010 is regarding mal-

administration.

38. Rule 8 of the Conduct Rules reads as follows:

“8. Evidence before committees, etc.—(1) Save as provided in sub-rule (3), no member of the service shall, except with the previous sanction of the Government, give evidence in connection with any inquiry conducted by any person, committee or other authority.

(2) Where any sanction has been accorded under sub-rule (1) no member of the service giving such evidence shall criticize the policy or any action of the Central Government or of a State Government.

(3) Nothing in this Rule shall apply to—

(a) evidence given at any inquiry before an authority appointed by the Government, or by Parliament or by a State Legislature; or

(b) evidence given in any judicial inquiry; or

(c) evidence given at departmental inquiry ordered by any authority subordinate to the Government.

28

Page 29

In substance the Rule prohibits a member of the service to

give evidence in connection with any inquiry conducted by

any person, committee or other authority except with the

previous sanction of the Government. However, sub-rule (3)

(b) makes a categorical declaration that nothing in the Rule

shall apply to evidence given in any judicial inquiry. Writ

petition filed in public interest before the highest court of the

country cannot be an inquiry contemplated under Rule 8(i).

This is apart from the fact that sub-rule (3)(b) expressly

excludes evidence given in any judicial inquiry. Dehors such

an exception, Rule 8 would be subversive of the basic

freedom of the citizens of this country, detrimental to the

norms of good governance and antithetical to the liberal

democratic structure of the Constitution.

39. Rule 3(1) reads as follows:

“3. General.—(1) Every member of the service shall, at all times, maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and shall do nothing which is unbecoming of a member of the service.”

40. We are at a loss to comprehend how the filing of the

29

Page 30

writ petition containing allegations that the Government of

India is lax in discharging 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.

41. Even otherwise, the IMPUGNED order, in our opinion is

wholly untenable. The purpose behind the proceedings

appears calculated to harass the appellant since he dared to

point out certain aspects of mal-administration in the

Government of India. The action of the respondents is

consistent with their conduct clearly recorded in (2011) 8

SCC 16. The whole attempt appears to be to suppress any 6 Ram Jethmalani & Others v. Union of India & Others, (2011) 8 SCC 1 - 40. We must express our serious reservations about the responses of the Union of India. In the first instance, during the earlier phases of hearing before us, the attempts were clearly evasive, confused, or originating in the denial mode. It was only upon being repeatedly pressed by us did the Union of India begin to admit that indeed the investigation was proceeding very slowly. It also became clear to us that in fact the investigation had completely stalled, inasmuch as custodial interrogation of Hasan Ali Khan had not even been sought for, even though he was very much resident in India. Further, it also now appears that even though his passport had been impounded, he was able to secure another passport from the RPO in Patna, possibly with the help or aid of a politician.

41. During the course of the hearings the Union of India repeatedly insisted that the matter involves many jurisdictions, across the globe, and a proper investigation could be accomplished only through the concerted efforts by different law enforcement agencies, both within the Central Government, and also various State Governments. However, the absence of any satisfactory explanation of the slowness of the pace of investigation, and lack of any credible answers as to why the respondents did not act with respect to those actions that were feasible, and within the ambit of powers of the Enforcement Directorate itself, such as custodial investigation, leads us to conclude that the lack of seriousness in the efforts of the respondents are contrary to the requirements of laws and constitutional obligations of the Union of India. It was only upon the insistence and intervention of this Court that the Enforcement Directorate initiated and secured custodial interrogation over Hassan Ali Khan.

30

Page 31

probe into the question of blackmoney by whatever means

fair or foul. The present impugned proceedings are nothing

but a part of the strategy to intimidate not only the appellant

but also to send a signal to others who might dare in future

to expose any mal-administration. The fact remains, that

this Court eventually agreed with the substance of the

complaint pleaded in Writ Petition No.37 of 2010 and

connected matters; and directed an independent inquiry into

the issue of black money.

42. The Constitution declares that India is a sovereign

democratic Republic. The requirement of such democratic

republic is that every action of the State is to be informed

with reason. State is not a hierarchy of regressively

genuflecting coterie of bureaucracy.

43. The right to judicial remedies for the redressal of either

42. The Union of India has explicitly acknowledged that there was much to be desired with the manner in which the investigation had proceeded prior to the intervention of this Court. From the more recent reports, it would appear that the Union of India, on account of its more recent efforts to conduct the investigation with seriousness, on account of the gravitas brought by this Court, has led to the securing of additional information, and leads, which could aid in further investigation. For instance, during the continuing interrogation of Hassan Ali Khan and the Tapurias, undertaken for the first time at the behest of this Court, many names of important persons, including leaders of some corporate giants, politically powerful people, and international arms dealers have cropped up. So far, no significant attempt has been made to investigate and verify the same. This is a further cause for the grave concerns of this Court, and points to the need for continued, effective and day-to-day monitoring by an SIT constituted by this Court, and acting on behalf, behest and direction of this Court.

31

Page 32

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 such right is not

available.

44. The respondents consider that a complaint to this Court

of executive malfeasance causing debilitating economic and

security concerns for the country amounts to inappropriate

conduct for a civil servant is astounding. There is another

factor which brings the respondent virtually within the ambit

of legal malice, to say the least Mr. Jasveer Singh, another

employee of the respondent was also a co-petitioner in the

Civil Writ filed in this Court. However, no action is taken

against him. This leaves much to be desired and makes

bonafides of the respondents suspect.

45. The appeal is allowed. The judgment under appeal is

set-aside. Consequently, the O.A. stands allowed as prayed

for. The respondents are liable jointly and severally to pay

costs to the appellant which is quantified at Rs.5,00,000/-

32

Page 33

(rupees five lakhs). It is open to the respondents to identify

those who are responsible for the initiation of such

unwholesome action against the appellant and recover the

amounts, if the respondents can and have the political will.

..............................J. [ J. CHELAMESWAR ]

…...........................J. [ A.K. SIKRI ]

New Delhi September 22, 2014

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 33

Page 34

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9043 OF 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) NO.12019 of 2014)

Vijay Shankar Pandey … Appellant

Versus

Union of India & Another … Respondents

O R D E R

It is mentioned today by Mr. Pallav Shishodia, learned senior counsel that in the Judgment delivered on 22nd

September, 2014 in this appeal, a factual error occurred at paragraph 44. In the said paragraph, the name of Mr. Jasveer Singh is mentioned whereas the correct name is Mr. Suneel Kumar. The paragraph stands modified accordingly.

......…........................J. [J. CHELAMESWAR]

..................................J. [A.K. SIKRI]

NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 24, 2014

34

VIJAY SHANKAR PANDEY Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR

VIJAY SHANKAR PANDEY Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR