AJAY JAGAN VYAWHARE v. THE SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Disciplinary Authority Cannot Direct De Novo Inquiry or Ignore Concluded Inquiry Reports Without Following Statutory Procedures and Principles of Natural Justice.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:13852-DB
Decision Date: 24-03-2026
List of Laws
Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979; Service Jurisprudence; Principles of Natural Justice; Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- Facts: The petitioner, a Water Supply and Sanitation Engineer, was subjected to a departmental inquiry in 2023 regarding allegations of misconduct and financial irregularities during his tenure at Gangapur Municipal Council. The inquiry proceeded to its conclusion, and the Inquiry Officer submitted a final report to the competent authority. However, instead of acting upon this report, Respondent No. 2 (Commissioner and Director of Municipal Councils) issued an order on 24.12.2025 directing a "de novo" inquiry and appointing a new Inquiry Officer on the same charges. The petitioner was not provided with a copy of the original report or any reasons for its rejection, leading him to challenge the order for being ultra vires the governing service rules.
- Procedural Posture: The petitioner filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, seeking to quash the order for a fresh inquiry.
- Issue: Whether a disciplinary authority, after the conclusion of a departmental inquiry and submission of a report, can ignore said report and direct a de novo inquiry on the same charges by appointing a new Inquiry Officer without following the procedure prescribed under Rule 9 of the 1979 Rules?
- Holding: No, the disciplinary authority cannot bypass the existing inquiry report. The Court quashed the impugned order, holding that the authority must proceed from the stage of the first inquiry report in accordance with the statutory framework.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979, specifically Rule 9, provides a clear statutory scheme. Upon receiving a report, the authority may either remit the matter for "further inquiry" (not de novo) for recorded reasons or, if it disagrees with the findings, record tentative reasons and allow the delinquent employee to represent against them. The Court relied on "K.R. Deb v. Collector of Central Excise" to establish that service jurisprudence does not countenance repeated inquiries on the same charge-sheet merely because the authority is dissatisfied with the result. Directing a fresh inquiry without identifying legal defects in the first one or supplying the report to the employee violates both the statutory rules and the principles of natural justice.
🔒 For Members Only