Limited further inquiry under CCS (CCA) Rules cannot be used to reopen a concluded disciplinary proceeding as a de novo inquiry.

Rule 15(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 permits a disciplinary authority to remit an inquiry only for a limited further inquiry needed to cure a genuine procedural defect or evidentiary gap, and the inquiry should normally continue from the stage of the defect before the same inquiry officer unless unavailable. Where the original inquiry had been completed, both sides had led evidence, and findings on charges had already been returned, a remittal without any real procedural defect, omitted witness, or other lawful basis amounts in substance to a fresh de novo inquiry. On the facts stated, the remittal order and appointment of a new inquiry officer were invalid, and the challenge to the Tribunal's decision failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the disciplinary authority could remit the inquiry report for further inquiry and appoint a new inquiry officer, or whether the course adopted amounted to an impermissible de novo inquiry under Rule 15(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

Analysis: Rule 15(1) permits the disciplinary authority to remit the case to the inquiring authority for further inquiry only where some infirmity in the procedure or a gap in the evidence justifies a limited further inquiry. Such further inquiry is to proceed from the stage at which the defect arose and, ordinarily, before the same inquiry officer, unless that officer is unavailable or incapacitated. On the facts, the original inquiry had been completed, both sides had been given opportunity to lead evidence, and the inquiry officer had returned findings on the charges. The reasons recorded for remitting the matter did not disclose any real procedural defect, omitted witness, or other lawful basis for reopening the inquiry. Appointing a new inquiry officer and a new presenting officer in these circumstances showed that the purported further inquiry was, in substance, a fresh inquiry.

Conclusion: The remittal order and the appointment of a new inquiry officer were invalid; the challenge to the Tribunal's decision failed and the respondent succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A disciplinary authority may order only a limited further inquiry under Rule 15(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 to cure a genuine procedural defect, and it cannot use that power to substitute a new inquiry officer and reopen a concluded inquiry in effect as a de novo proceeding.

---