De Novo Inquiry Impermissible Under Rule 10, Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971: Supreme Court Grants Relief to Judicial Officer

Supreme Court: In an appeal arising out of a challenge to the initiation of a de novo departmental inquiry against a judicial officer, a Division Bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ., allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment dated 26 September 2024 passed by the Gujarat High Court. The Court held that the High Court erred in upholding the decision of the disciplinary authority directing a de novo inquiry, as the same was impermissible under Rule 10 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971.

Emphasising that the expression “further inquiry” under Rule 10 does not contemplate a fresh or de novo inquiry but only a continuation of the earlier proceedings, the Court held that the disciplinary authority could not order a de novo inquiry in the guise of further inquiry. Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned judgment and directed reinstatement of the appellant with all consequential benefits.

Background

The present appeal arises from the judgment dated 26 September 2024 passed by the Gujarat High Court, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant, a judicial officer, challenging the initiation of a de novo departmental inquiry was dismissed. The appellant joined the Gujarat State Judicial Service on 9 August 2012 as a Civil Judge and was promoted as Senior Civil Judge on 11 September 2018. At the relevant time, she was serving as Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Savarkundla, Gujarat. On 29 February 2020, she was placed under suspension in contemplation of a departmental inquiry based on anonymous and signed complaints. Subsequently, on 17 October 2022, a charge-sheet comprising 8 charges, was served upon her.

An inquiry was conducted by the Principal District Judge, Amreli, who, by report dated 14 December 2023, found only Charge 1 (habitual absenteeism) to be proved, while Charges 2 to 8 were not proved. The disciplinary authority (Standing Committee of the High Court), upon reviewing the report, found procedural lapses and improper appreciation of evidence, and issued a show-cause notice proposing rejection of the inquiry report and initiation of a de novo inquiry. In the interregnum, the appellant tendered her resignation, which was rejected for non-compliance with Rule 36, Gujarat Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 2002. Thereafter, on 22 May 2024, the disciplinary authority rejected the inquiry report and ordered a de novo inquiry. The appellant challenged the same by way of a writ petition; however, the High Court upheld the decision, holding that Rule 10, Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 empowers the disciplinary authority to remit the matter for further inquiry upon recording reasons, and that such reasons were duly reflected in the show-cause notice dated 13 February 2024. Thus, the present appeal was filed before the Court.

Analysis

The Court having considered the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the record took note of Rule 10, Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 and observed that where the disciplinary authority is not itself the inquiry authority, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, remit the case to the Inquiry Authority for further inquiry. It was clarified that the expression “further inquiry” occurring in Rule 10(1) does not mean a fresh or a de novo inquiry, but only a further inquiry in continuation of the earlier proceedings.

For the purposes of the present case, the Court relied upon the interpretation of Rule 10 by a two-Judge Bench in Gujarat State Financial Corpn. v. Dilip Patilal Patel¹ and held that the High Court erred in not appreciating that the notice dated 13 February 2024 issued by the disciplinary authority directing a de novo inquiry was not permissible in view of the mandate contained in Rule 10 of the Rules. The Court expressed agreement with the interpretation put forth in the aforesaid decision.

Decision

Accordingly, for the reasons recorded, the impugned judgment dated 26 September 2024 passed by the High Court was quashed and set aside. The respondents were directed to reinstate the appellant and grant all consequential benefits. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.

Also Read: Irregular Disciplinary Enquiry: Court cannot reinstate employee as such; Matter must be remanded to Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority | SCC Times

[Chandni Prateek Sharma v. Gujarat High Court, SLP (C) No.28356 of 2024, decided on 21-4-2026]