Rajendra Babu, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The respondent, while discharging the duites as Asst. Sub-Inspector in CRPF at Guwahati, was transferred to Jammu by order dated May 31, 1991 and he was relieved on the same day to enable him to proceed to Jammu. The respondent failed to report for duty at Jammu but had remained absent on the ground that he was not well and he had been advised to take rest. He was served with memorandum of charges. The gist of it is as under: 1. That he did not report for duty at the office of the IGP (OPS), CRPF, J and K, Srinagar on his transfer/attachment and did not proceed to his new posting from present office as ASI (M) in GC, CRPF, Guwahati and thereby committed an act of disobedience of the orders of his superiors in the discharge of his duties in his capacity as a member of the force under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949; 2. That he committed an act of neglect of duty in his capacity as a member of the force inasmuch as he remained absent from duty from June 1, 1991 to September 2, 1991 without proper permission from the competent authority and without sufficient cause, reason or ground thereby violated Section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949; 3. That he committed an act of misconduct by sending an application dated June 1, 1991 directly to IGP, NES, CRPF in violation of the provisions contained in Para 3 of Circular Order No. 3/80 read with the decision of the Government of India in this regard.
(3.) The Enquiry Officer conducted an enquiry on the aforesaid charges and made a report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority noticed certain irregularities in the conduct of the enquiry which were of vital nature, in particular, that the Enquiry Officer acted on the letters of one U.N. Chaini, who was a witness on behalf of the department and K.M. Verghese, who was a witness on behalf of the respondent on the basis of a representation made by them stating that they are not in a position to attend the enquiry proceedings but indicating the facts within their knowledge. The concerned authority was of the view that the witnesses should have been examined in person and the procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer was contrary to the relevant rules in taking their letters as statements. The Enquiry Officer did not ascertain the facts necessary for the conclusion of the case. Therefore, he set aside the findings recorded by him and directed de novo enquiry by an order made on May 19, 1995 which was communicated to the respondent on June 7, 1995. Challenging this order, the respondent preferred a writ petition in the High Court of Guwahati. The learned single Judge directed issue of rule but did not grant any interim order on the basis that Rule 15 of the Disciplinary Rules enables the authority to remit the matter to the Enquiry Officer for further enquiry and that the power has been exercised by the authority under Rule 15 and mere use of expression "de novo" will not change the tenor of the order. A writ appeal was perferred against the said order and the Division Bench of the High Court granted initially an interim order staying further proceedings in the enquiry and thereafter by an order made on December 15, 1997 allowed the appeal by taking the view that in an appeal arising out of an order of punishment made by the Disciplinary Authority accepting or rejecting the conclusion reached by the enquiry authority, the appellate authority could direct a fresh or de novo enquiry and such power is not available to the Disciplinary Authority. Thus, the Division Bench set aside the order made by the Disciplinary Authority on June 6, 1995. Hence this appeal by special leave.;