KERALA HIGH COURT

                                             Kesavan Namboodiri

                                                         Vs

                                                 State of Kerala

                                            (P. Govinda Menon, J.)

                                                   21.06.1982

                                                 JUDGEMENT

P. Govinda Menon, J.

( 1. ) THE question which arises for consideration in this petition is whether the second
respondent, Director of Public Instruction has jurisdiction to completely wipe out the enquiry
conducted by the Regional deputy Director of Education, Ernakulam into the charges framed
against the petitioner, an Asst. Educational Officer working in Trichur District and direct a de
novo enquiry and that too by another officer, the Deputy Director of Education, trichur. That he
has no jurisdiction to do so is clear from the decision of the supreme Court in K. R. Deb v.
Collector Central Excise, Shillong (AIR. 1971 SC 1447 ). In that case, the Supreme Court had to
consider the effect of Rule !5 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 1957 and after doing so, came to the following conclusion: "13. It seems to us that R. 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 were not examined for some
other reason, the Disciplinary Authority may ask the Inquiry Officer to record further evidence.
But there is no provision in R. 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 R. 9. "

( 2. ) THE rule considered by the Supreme Court is more or less similar to R. 15 of the Kerala
Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules (for short 'the Rules' ). R. 15 (11)
authorizes the Disciplinary authority (other than the Government) where it is not the inquiring
authority, to consider the record of the inquiry and record its findings on each charge. Under sub-
rule 12, if the Disciplinary Authority having regard to the findings is of opinion that any major
penalty should be imposed, it has to follow the procedure prescribed therein after giving a notice.
THE procedure for imposing minor penalty is provided for in sub-rule (13 ). An examination of
R. 15 shows that the Disciplinary Authority cannot wipe out the inquiry already conducted and
direct a de novo enquiry. Where the findings of the inquiring authority are adverse to the
delinquent officer, it is open to the Disciplinary Authority to consider the material and evidence,
come to a different conclusion and exonerate him from charges. It, on the other hand, the
inquiring authority holds that the charges are not proved, it is open to the Disciplinary Authority
to take a different view and record findings. Where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied that
some evidence which would have been available was not collected by the Inquiring Authority, it
may even direct the Inquiring authority to proceed further with the inquiry in the interests of
justice. THEre is no provision in the rules to order a de novo inquiry after wiping out the inquiry
already conducted Since the second respondent had no authority to do so, Ext, P4 deserves to be
and is hereby quashed. It is, however, open to him to apply his mind once again to the record of
inquiry and take appropriate action in accordance with law. THE petition is allowed in this
manner but. under the circumstances without costs. Issue carbon copies to both parties on usual
terms. Allowed. . . ;