Holding

A disciplinary authority cannot set aside a valid enquiry report and order a fresh enquiry merely because it is unsatisfied, and filing a public‑interest writ does not constitute misconduct under the Conduct Rules.

Summary

Vijay Shankar Pandey, an IAS officer, was charged under the All India Services (Conduct) Rules for filing a writ petition that criticised the government’s handling of black‑money issues. An enquiry officer exonerated him, but the Uttar Pradesh government rejected the report and ordered a fresh two‑member inquiry board under Rule 8(3) of the Discipline Rules. Pandey challenged the order before the Supreme Court, arguing that a second enquiry was not permissible and that his petition did not constitute misconduct. The Court held that the normal rule is a single enquiry and that the State cannot set aside a valid enquiry report merely because it is unsatisfied, nor can it deem the filing of a public‑interest writ as conduct unbecoming. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, the appeal was allowed, and the respondents were ordered to pay costs.

Issues considered

The legality of ordering a second disciplinary enquiry after an exonerating enquiry report.
Whether filing a writ petition criticizing government policy violates Conduct Rules 3, 7, 8 and 17.
Whether Rule 8(3) of the Discipline Rules permits appointment of a fresh board after an enquiry has already been conducted.
The validity of the State’s reasons for rejecting the enquiry report under Rules 8(15), 8(16), 8(20) and 8(24).
Whether the appellant’s conduct amounts to misconduct under the Conduct Rules.

Legislation cited

All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968s. 17, s. 3(1), s. 7, s. 8(1)
All India Services (Discipline and Conduct) Rules, 1969s. 8(1), s. 8(15), s. 8(16), s. 8(2), s. 8(20), s. 8(24), s. 8(3)
Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850

Subjects

Service lawDisciplinary enquiryConduct RulesBlack moneyWrit petitionSecond enquiryAdministrative lawJudicial remediesHarassment

Judgment

[2014] 13 S.C.R. 1238

A VIJAY SHANKAR PANDEY
V.

UNION OF INDIA&ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 9043 of2014)
B
SEPTEMBER 22, 2014
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND A. K. SIKRI, JJ.]
Service Law:
c All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 - rr. 3, 7, 8
and 17 - Disciplinary action - Charge sheet against
appel/ant-IAS officer for violation of the Conduct Rules -
Challenged to, by appellant -Application dismissed by the
tribunal, however, writ petition before the High Court withdrawn
by the appellant - Subsequently, appellant though
0
exonerated of the charges by the Enquiry Officer, the
Government rejected the report submitted by the Enquiry
Officer since there were allegations against the appellant for
criticising the Government on black money issue in the writ
E petition filed through the appellant before the Supreme Court
- Order passed for constitution of two member Inquiry Board
to again enquire into the charges framed - Writ petition by
the appellant challenging the order- Dismissed by the High
Court - On appeal, held: The fact that the report submitted
F 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- Court is at a
loss to comprehend how the filing of the writ petition containing
allegations that the Government of India is lax in discharging
G 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 - Order rejecting
the enquiry report, is wholly untenable - Impugned
proceedings is a strategy to intimidate not only the appellant
H
1238
VIJAY SHANKAR PANDEYv. UNION OF INDIA &ANR. 1239

but also to send a signal to others who might dare in future to A
expose any mal~administration - Right to judicial remedies
for-the redressal of either 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 B
such right is not available - Respondents liablejointly and
severally to pay Rupees Five Lakhs as costs - All India
Seiylces (Discipline and Conduct) Rules, 1969 - rr. 8(15),
(16\(20) and (24)- Costs.
, .!Allowing the appe_al, the Court c
HELD: 1.1 The normal rule is that there can be only
one Enquiry. In *K.R. Deb case, this Court has also
recognized the possibility of a further enquiry in certain
circumstances enumerated therein. The· decision 0
however makes it clear that the fact that the Report
· submitted by the Enquiring Authority is not acceptable
to the d_isciplinary authority, is not a ground for
completely setting aside the enquiry report and ordering
a second Enquiry. [Para 23][1254•C-E]
E
1.2 In the order whereby the State rejected 'he enquiry
report, the reasons recorded by the respondent for
ordering a fresh inquiry by a Board, - that the Inquiry
Report dated 301h August, 2012 is cursory; the inquiry
was conducted in violation of Rules 8(15), (16), (20)and F
(24) of the All India Services (Discipline and Conduct)
Rules, 1969; 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 All India Services G
(Conduct) Rules, 1968; and that the Inquiry Officer failed
to properly investigate the "facts before submitting his
report, are all untenable. [Para 26, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38)
[1254-G-H; 1255-A-C]
H
1240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.

A 1.3 The Court is at a loss to comprehend how the filing
of the writ petition containing allegations that the
Government of India is lax in discharging its
constitutional obligations of establishing the rule oflaw
can be said to amount to either failure to maintain
B absolute integrity and devotion to duty or of indulging
in conduct unbecoming of a member of the service. Even
otherwise, the order rejecting the equiry report, is wholly
untenable. The purpose behind the proceedings appears
calculated to harass the appellant since he dared to point
c out certain aspects of mal-administration in the
· Government of India. The action of the respondents is
consistent with their conduct clearly recorded in the case
of **Ram Jethmalani & Others v Union of India & Ors.
The whole attempt appears to be to suppress any probe
D into the question of blackmoney by whatever means fair
or foul. The instant 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
E remains, that this Court eventually !lgreed with the
substance of the complaint pleaded in WP No.37 of 2010
and connected matters; and directed an independent
inquiry into the issue of black money. [Para 40, 41]
[1262-B-E; 1263-A]
F 1.4 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. The
G right to judicial remedies for the redressal of either
personal or public grievances is a constitutional right of
the subjects (both citizens and non-citizens) 9f this
country. Employees of the State cannot become
members of a different and inferior class to whom such
H right is not available. [Para 42, 43][1263-A-B; 1264-A-B]
VIJAY SHANKAR PANDEYv. UNION OF INDIA&ANR. 1241

1.5 The respondents considered that a complaint to this A
Court of executive malfeasance causing debilitating
economic and security concerns for the country
amounts to inappropriate conduct for a civil servant is
astounding. There was another factor which brought the
respondent virtually within the ambit of legal malice, B
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 makfS bonafides of the respondents
suspect. [Para 44][1264-B-D] C
1.6 The respondents are liable jointly and severally to
pay costs to the appellant which is quantified at
Rs.5,00,000/-(rupees five lakhs). [Para 45][1264-D-E]
*K.R. Deb v. The Collector of Central Excise,
D
Shillong 1971 Suppl. SCR 375: (1971) 2 SCC
102 - relied on.
**Ram Jethmalani & Others v. Union of India &
Others 2011 (8) SCR 725 : (2011) 8 SCC 1 -
referred to. E
CASE LAW REFERENCE
2011 (8) SCR 725 referred to. · Para 7
1971 Suppl. SCR 375 relied on. Para 21
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. F
9043 of 2014.
From the judgment and order dated 03.04.2014 passed
· in W.P. No. 87 (S/B) of 2014 by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. G
Pallav Shishodia, Sr. Adv., Apurv Tiwari and Kamlendra
Mishra, Advs. for the Appellant.
KV. Vishwanathan, Sr.Adv., Upendra Mishra andAbhisth
Kumar, Advs. for the Respondents.
H
' . 1242 .·· .:·SUPREMECOURTREPORTS• ~' [2014]13S.C.R.
•

·A· : '· ·• :~.The'JUdgment of the Couit was delivered by.-.· !' ,· :: : : ·
..... ·' ' '-. -;__: j,...; .. " ., . •' - ,- ,',. , .-, • ., -• - ,. ~ '. • l - - • -.. • . - ·."" 1_ ' • -

. •.· ".': CHELAMESWAR,'J:1. Leave'granted."' ' .. o · 11' - ~
·' ·- ··1;;, ·' · · .;.,. ·· ·., ,; ; · 'Jr.:;.... . . ... ,_··,_ .. ~:!,~~ .~L- -
i ', .• ' 7. ·; : 2. The .unsuccessful petitioner
-
in1 -, the Writ
-
Petition
- "•- ' '
·
i \
. cNo.87(S/B)/2014 on the file of the High court of Allahabad is
'8 , the appellant,herein .. By the impugned judgment, dated
~ 3.4.2014 the said writ petition was .dismissed by a Division
zBench of theAllahabad High Court. . . _: · . , . 1 ,,, •

- :1. ' ; .3'. The appellant is an officer of the Indian Administrative
. :ser\rice. :·on 22.1.2011 he was served with achargesheet .
.;:·c consisting of five charges, All the charges are to the effect
dhatthe conduct of the appellantis contrary to Rule~3, 7; 8 and
( ; ·17 ofTheAll India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter
called :CONDUCT Ruleih.Atter certain correspondence; (the
. details of which are not,necessaryforthe present purpose),
CD· the disi:iplinary 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.ANo.623 of 2012 which was
eventually'dismissed on 29.8.2012. Aggrieved by the same,
. ::, E 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.· · ·· "-· ·
·~ ,.,,_..~/ ·; • .;;:.' ._,:,',·::-.· .-: -~'·I'.:~·;(; :··'
··,..._\·-' ...
,:.'
4. The
,._
Enquiry Officer submitted
___ --
his report on 30.8.2012
... ,.,.-.,. .-.-..-
·-, ·exonerating the appellant of all the charges. The copy of the
\ -··
· F csaid report is not served on him:. : r.. ,·, >:' :. :··.:· ·
.I 5. 9:9.Z012, the o'ri' of a Selecfidri Committee ~e~ti~g
/ :Aor considering the cases of officers of the Indian Administrative
·~··
. ·Service for promotion to the Super Time Scal&.ll(ASTS-11) was
. G · held. The case of th.e appellant was consider~d .and the
. decision was kept in a sealed cover.. The appellant, therefore,
a
. ' submitted 'represeritaticin 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
1
: H Time Scale-II (ASTS-11): 'As !~ere was no response to the
VIJAY SHANKAR PANDEYv. UNION OF INDIA&ANR. 1243
[CHELAMESWAR, J.]

representation, he approached the Central Administrative A
Tribunal on 26.9.2012 once again in O.A.No.381 of2012with
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 B
enquiry officer;
b) to _issue an order or direction. commanding the
respondents open the sealed cover of the
recommendations of the selection committee and c
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 D
referred 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 E
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 F
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 G
·through Sri Vljay Shankar Pandey before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and as su~h it is a clear violation of Rule-
3(1 ), Rule-7, Rule-8(1) and Rule-17 oftheAll India Service
(Conduct) Rules, 1968. Therefore the Enquiry Officer
has failed to properly investigate the facts in the enquiry H
proceedings.
1244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.

A 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 &
B Appeal) Rules, 1969, comprising of Sri Alok Ranjan,
Agricultural Production Commissioner, Govt. ofU.P. and
Sri Anil Kumar Gupta, Infrastructure and Industrial
Commissioner, Govt. of U.P. in order to enquire into the
charsges imposed against him."
c 6. Challenging the order dated 26.9.2012, the 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/
D 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.
E
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
F 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
G that the conduct of the petitioner is 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
H Rule 13 of the CONDUCT Rules whereunder he is obliged to
VIJAY SHANKAR PANDEYv. UNION OF INDIA &ANR. 1245
[CHELAMESWAR, J.]

give i_nformation to the respondent within one f!IOnth of A
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 B
giving evidence without the previous sanction of the
government and, therefore, contravention of Rules 71 and 82
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 C
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 D
iii. which is capable of embarrassing the relations between the Central
Government and the Government of an{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. E
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 otherto in sub-rule (3) shall give
publicity to such evidence.
authority. F
(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 G
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. H
1246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 s·.p.R.

A respectively of the CONDUCT Rules. Charge No.5 is that the
appellant violated Rule 173 of the CONDUCT Rules.
Charge No.1
Writ Petition No.37(Civil)/2010 Julio F. Ribero and Others
B v. Govt. of India and others has been filed through India
Rejuv~nation Initiative, NGO before the Hon'ble Supn:irne
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
c 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
D Services.
This conduct of yours is contrary to Rule-3 of the All
India Service (Conduct) Rules, 1968 and you have
vi.elated 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)

F 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
G 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.
Exp/anation.-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
H to the Government regarding such action.
VIJAY SHANKAR PANDEYv. UNION OF INDIA&ANR.. 1247
[CHELAMESWAR, J.]

Rules-1968 information is to be given within one month A
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.
B
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 C
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 0
name. as such you violated Rule-7 of the All India Service
(Conduct) Rules-1968.
This conduct of yours is contrary to Rule-3 of the All
India Service (Conduct) Rules-1968 and you have
violated the aforesaid rule. E
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 F
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) ~ules-1968, members of the All India Service
are not allowed to depose in any enquiry wherein the G
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.
H
1248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.

A 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 ~ffidavit which was
B 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
c 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
0 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 Officer exonerated
E 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.
F 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 irto the charges
G 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
H
VIJAY SHANKAR PANDEYv. UNION OF INDIA&ANR. 1249
[CHELAMESWAR, J.]

is wholly illegal. It is submitted that the said rule only A
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;
(i) Appointing an officer to enquire into the misconduct
of the Public Servant; or B
(ii) Appoint an authority or board under the Public
Servants (lnquiries)Act, 1850.
10. It is further submitted that the State cannot resort to
the provisions of the 1850 Act after having had appointed an C
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) D
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 E
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 while
conducting an enquiry. Rules 8 (15) and 8(16) of the
DISCIPLINE Rules, incorporate the rule of audi a/tern pattern F
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 G
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
H
1250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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 but not as mandatory.
(B) The ultimate conclusion of the State in rejecting the
c 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
D 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.
E 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
F also submitted that the decision of the State is well within the
authority conferred under Rule 8, sub-Rule (3) of the
DISCIPLINE Rules ..
13. The Division Bench based its conclusion,-that the
IMPUGNED order dated 26.9.2012 cannot be faulted, on two
· G 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,

H
VIJAY SHANKAR PANDEYv. UNION OF INDIA&ANR. 1251
[CHELAMESWAR, J.]

the High Court accepted the submission on behalf of the State A
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 B
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. C·
16. The first submission of the appellant is to be
examined 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 D
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 E
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 ., F
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 G
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 H
1252 SUPREMECOURTREPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.

A 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
B authority to appoint an authority to enquire into the truth of any
imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against a member
of the service ifthe disciplinary authority is of the opinion that
there are grounds to inquire into. Such an authority could be
appointed either in exercise of the power conferred under Rules
C 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
D 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
E consisting of two or more roembers.
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
F DISCIPLINE Rules is an order constituting such a Board under
the provisions of the Public Servants (lnquiries)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
G a multi-member Board is appointed as an Enquiring Authority,
such a Board could be appointed only under provisions of the
Public Servants (lnquiries)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
H Board to inquire into the misconduct of a delinquent officer.
VIJAY SHANKAR PANDEYv. UNION OF INDIA&ANR. 1253
[CHELAMESWAR, J.]

21. Be that as it may, the question is whether the A
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 B
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 SCC 102, examined
the question in the context of Rule 15( 1) of the Central Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. It C
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 o
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". E
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 F
some seriol,ls 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 G
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
Rule9. H
1254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.

A 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
B was not only not warranted by the rules but was harassing
to the appellant."
(Emphasis supplied)
and allowed the appeal of K.R. Deb.
C 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
D 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
E 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
F the 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
G 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 3Q1h August, 2012 is
cursory.
H
VIJAY SHANKAR PANDEYv. UNION OF INDIA&ANR. 1255
[CHELAMESWAR, J.]

(ii) The inquiry was cond.ucted in violation of Rules A
8(15), (16), (20) and (24) of the DISCIPLINE Rules.
(iii) The contents of Writ Petition (C) No. 37of2010 on
the file of this Court constitutes a criticism of the
Central Government, an_d therefore, is a clear
violation of Rule 3(1), Rule 7, 8(1) and 17 of the B
CONDUCT Rules.
(iv) That the Inquiry Officer failed to properly investigate
the facts before submitting his report.
27. The legality of the IMPUGNED order depends on the C
tenability of the above. We shall deal with the last of the above-
mentioned four reasons:
¥1 Reason:
It is an absolutely untenable ground, since there was D
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 E
made in the said Writ Petition. Therefore, there were no facts
to be investigated into.
1st Reason:
Coming to the first reason - that the report is a cursory
report. A copy of the report is not made available to the F
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
conclusion is otherwise justified, whether the report is cursory G
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.
H
1256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.

A 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 rules 4 and record our conclusion
8 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
c proposed to be proved by the disciplinary authority shall be
produced on the date fixed for the Enquiry; witnesses on behalf
of the disciplina.ry authority may be examined both in chief as
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
D 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 notori any new matter, without the
leave of the inquiring authority. The inquiring authority may also put such
E 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
F 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
G 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
H evidence which has been produced originally.
VIJAY SHANKAR PANDEYv. UNION OF INDIA&ANR. 1257
[CHELAMESWAR, J.]

well as cross etc. It is obvious from the Rule that the rule cannot A
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 8
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 c
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 D
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 E
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.
F
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) th·e articles of charge and the ·statement of
imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour; • G

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. H
1258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.

A (b) the defence of the member of the Service in respect
of each articl.e of charge;
(c) an assessment of the evidence in respect of each
article of charge; and
B (d) the findings on each article of charge and the
reasons therefor.
Explanation.-lf in the opinion of the inquiring
authority the proceedings of the inquiry establish any
article of charge different from the original articles of
C 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
D 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-
E (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
F 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
G
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
H rule will have virtually no application to a case where the
VIJAY SHANKAR PANDEYv. UNION OF INDIA&ANR. 1259
[CHELAMESWAR,·J.]

delinquent employee does not dispute the factual correctness A
of the allegations contained in the articles of charge. Therefore,
it follows that this reason also is wholly untenable.
~!!! Reason:

Coming to the 3rct reason given in the IMPUGNED Order 8
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) a·nd 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: C
"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 D
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
(eceipt of the request, the. member of service shall be E
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 F
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 G
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
H
1260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.

A which have been the subject niatter 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:
8
"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
c the name of any other person or in any communication
to t:he 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
D Government or a State Government; or
(ii) which is capable of embarrassing the relations
between the Central Government and any State
Government; or
E (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
F the service in 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
G 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
H
VIJAY SHANKAR PANDEYv. UNION OF INDIA&ANR. 1261
[CHELAMESWAR, J.]

in the Writ Petition (C) No.37 of 2010 is regarding mal- A
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, 8
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 C
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 o
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 E
by any authority subordinate to the Government.
In substance the Rule prohibits a member of the service
to give evidence in oonnection with any inquiry conducted by
any person, committee or other authority except with the
previous sanction of the Government. However, sub-rule (3)(b) F
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 G
evidence given in any judicial inquiry. Oehors 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. H
1262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 13 S.C.R.

A 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."
B
40. We are at a loss to comprehend how the filing of the
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
c 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
D 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 sec 16 • The
whole attempt appears to be to suppress any probe into the
question of blackmoney by whatever means fair or foul. The
E 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 .
F
e Ram Jethma/ani & 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
· G 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
H from the RPO in Patna, possibly with the help or aid of a politician.
VIJAY SHANKAR PANDEYv. UNION OF INDIA&ANR. 1263
[CHELAMESWAR, J.]

Petition No.37 of 2010 and connected matters; and directed A
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 B
coterie of bureaucracy.

41. During the course of the hearings the Union of India repeatedly
c
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 D
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 E
initiated and secured custodial interrogation over Hassan Ali Khan.
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 F
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
fapurias, undertaken for the first time at the behest of this Court, many
names of important persons, including leaders of some corporate giants, G
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.
H
1264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.

A 43. The right to judicial remedies for the redressal of
either 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.
B 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
C 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.
D
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/- (rupees
E 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.

Nidhi Jain Appeal allowed.

..