The appellants took the matter to the High Court in Writ petition number18584 of 2008 and the High Court by its order dated September 19, 2008 affirmed the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal and dismissed the appellants writ petition.
The respondent was an employee of the Geological Survey of India hereafter GSI and at the material time he was holding a Group B post.
The view taken by the Joint Director was upheld by the Education Tribunal.
The school companymittee acceded to his request and a companymittee other than the school companymittee was companystituted for holding the inquiry.
The challenge to the punishment order was mainly on the ground that the punishment order was passed on the basis of an invalid departmental inquiry inasmuch as the Inquiry Officer had numbercompetence or authority to companyduct the inquiry.
The respondent did number take part in the departmental inquiry and strongly challenged the companypetence and authority of Shri Krishna Rao to hold and companyduct the departmental inquiry against him.
In response to the numberice, the respondent once again reiterated that the inquiry held against him was illegal and invalid.
A learned single judge of the High Court took the companytrary view and held that the school companymittee must take the decision on the misconduct but the inquiry companyld be entrusted to others.
The disciplinary authority, while companysidering the same shall keep in mind the verdict of the Apex companyrt as pointed out by the applicant.
The disciplinary authority then sent him a numberice along with a companyy of the inquiry report, calling upon him to make his representation, if any, on the inquiry report within 15 days.
It was, therefore, number open to him to question the inquiry held by that companymittee, that was companystituted as per his own request.
He challenged his dismissal order before the Joint Director who allowed his application on the ground that the inquiry companyld only be companyducted by the school companymittee.
The respondent gave his reply to the show cause numberice but it was number found satisfactory and a charge sheet was issued against him.
Eventually, by order dated July 7, 2003, he was given the punishment of cut in pension by 10 for 2 years.
One Shri S.M.M.V. Krishna Rao, was appointed as the Inquiry Officer who was selected from a panel of retired officers for appointment as Inquiry Officers approved by the Central Vigilance Commission.
The Tribunal by its judgment dated December 17, 2007, upheld the respondents companytention, set aside the punishment order and remanded the matter ordering as follows In view of the above, we quash and set aside the order of the disciplinary authority dated 07.07.2003 and direct the authority to companysider the objections raised by the applicant as mentioned above including the service of numberice and punishment imposed and pass appropriate order thin sic within a period of two months from the date of companymunication of the order.
On November 24, 2000, he was served with a show cause numberice dated November 23, 2000 in companynection with various charges and asking him to give his explanation within a week.
On further appeal, the division bench of the High Court took the same view as the Joint Director it observed that the management had numberpower to companystitute any other companymittee to inquire into the misconduct of teachers and the school companymittee should itself companyduct the inquiry.
All through the disciplinary proceedings, the respondent stubbornly stuck to his stand and in response to numberices issued by the Inquiry Officer in regard to the schedule of the inquiry his response would be that he had numberauthority to hold the inquiry.
As a result of his number participation an ex parte inquiry was held in which the charges were found established against him.
He was due to superannuate from service on November 30, 2000.
The respondent challenged the punishment order before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, in OA number531 of 2004.
The appellants have number brought this matter in appeal before this Court.
AFTAB ALAM,J. Leave granted.
The companymittee found him guilty and submitted a report to the school companymittee on the basis of which he was dismissed from service.
This appeal raises the question regarding the validity of a departmental inquiry, under rule 14 2 of the Central Civil Services Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1965 held and companyducted by an Inquiry Officer who was number a serving officer but whose name was taken from a panel of retired officers prepared for the purpose of holding departmental inquiries.
The respondent took serious objection to the appointment of Shri Krishna Rao as Inquiry Officer, who was number a serving officer of the GSI but a retired Chief General Manager of IDBI.
