Departmental inquiry and back wages: recorded impracticability is mandatory, and full back wages require proof of non-employment.

A disciplinary authority cannot dispense with a departmental inquiry under Rule 19(ii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 unless it records a finding that holding the inquiry is not reasonably practicable; absent that foundational determination, the dismissal could not stand. Back wages are not an automatic consequence of setting aside dismissal and depend on the facts, with the employee first required to plead and show that he was not gainfully employed before the employer rebuts that claim. As no such pleading or material was placed, full back wages were unsustainable, and the relief was confined accordingly.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the disciplinary authority could invoke Rule 19(ii) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 without recording a finding that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry. (ii) Whether full back wages were payable as a natural consequence of setting aside the dismissal order, and who bore the burden on the question of gainful employment.

Issue (i): Whether the disciplinary authority could invoke Rule 19(ii) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 without recording a finding that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry.

Analysis: For invoking Rule 19(ii) read with Rule 14, the essential requirement is that the disciplinary authority must record a conclusion that holding an inquiry is not reasonably practicable. The record did not show such a finding. In the absence of that foundational determination, dispensing with the inquiry could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The invocation of Rule 19(ii) was invalid and the setting aside of the dismissal was justified.

Issue (ii): Whether full back wages were payable as a natural consequence of setting aside the dismissal order, and who bore the burden on the question of gainful employment.

Analysis: Back wages are not automatic or governed by a straightjacket formula. The relief depends on the facts of each case and involves a discretionary element. The employee must first plead and show that he was not gainfully employed; only then does the employer get an opportunity to rebut the claim. Here, no such pleading or material was placed by the employee.

Conclusion: Full back wages could not be granted, and that part of the High Court's order was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal could not be upheld on the ground of dispensation of inquiry, but the award of full back wages was unsustainable, so the appeal succeeded only to that limited extent.

Ratio Decidendi: Dispensing with a departmental inquiry requires a recorded finding that holding the inquiry is not reasonably practicable, and back wages are a discretionary relief for which the employee must first show non-employment.

---