Supreme Court of India has clarified that the disciplinary authority operating under the ambit of the Central Civil Service Rules holds the power to designate retired employees as inquiry officers. 

The apex court ruled that it is not imperative for the appointed inquiry officer to be a public servant, thereby dispelling a prevailing misconception. The case, titled Union of India v. Jagdish Chandra Sethy, emanated from an appeal contesting an Odisha High Court verdict.

The two-judge bench, comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Bela M Trivedi, delved into a crucial question, deliberating whether a retired public servant could be rightfully appointed as an inquiry officer, based on precedent. 

The court highlighted a pivotal distinction between the present case and the earlier reference case of Ravi Malik v. National Film Development Corporation (NFDC). While the NFDC case hinged on the specific term "public servant" mentioned in Rule 23(b) of Service Regulations,1982, the current instance invoked Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services, 1965, referring to an "authority" for inquiry into the misconduct of a government employee.

The court cited Union of India v. PC Ramakrishnnaya and the precedent set in the Alok Kumar case. These references elucidated that the usage of "other authority" rather than "public servant" in Rule 9(3) provides a scope for a retired officer to wield the delegated authority of the disciplinary body for conducting an inquiry.

The legal saga unfolded when the respondent, Jagdish Chandra Sethy, contested the disciplinary authority's order before the Central Administrative Tribunal in Cuttack. Sethy contended that the appointment of a retired government servant as the inquiry officer lacked specific reasoning, a contention that the tribunal upheld. The High Court subsequently endorsed the tribunal's decision, leading to the appellant's approach to the Supreme Court.

The apex court's ruling sets a far-reaching precedent, clarifying the scope of appointing retired employees as inquiry officers, irrespective of their public servant status. This pronouncement underscores the judiciary's dedication to the nuances of administrative regulations, ensuring a fair and just approach to employee misconduct inquiries.

Case Titled: Union of India v. Jagdish Chandra Sethy

Click here to read/download judgment