proceedings cannot be said to be of quasi-criminal in nature

A.I.R. 1958 Punjab 27. 

It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that an Inquiry Officer performs in the course of inquiry quasi—judicial functions and the proceedings held by him are in the nature of criminal or at least quasi—criminal proceeding, and, therefore, he must comply, at least in substance, with the provisions of S.173(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is, therefore, necessary to determine the nature of the inquiry held under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952. It is stated before me that the charges which the petitioner has been called upon to meet are in substance the same as will be covered by S.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and Sections 161 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, and I shall decide this case on this assumption. Rule 7(2) lays down the procedure, which should be observed in the course of an inquiry. The Punjab Civil Services Rules are only statutory rules regulating terms of service between the Government and its employees. The identical Rules called the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and also the provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, were discussed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in S.A. Venkataraman V/s Union of India, A.I.R. 1954 SC 375 (A). Their Lordships held that the purpose of such an inquiry is merely to hold the Govt. to come to a definite conclusion regarding the conduct of a Government servant and to decide what penalty, if any, should be imposed upon him. There is no other purpose which is served y this inquiry. The Inquiry Officer is appointed merely to find facts and it is clear from the Rules that it is not the Inquiry officer’s concern whether the facts established disclosed the commission of a criminal offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code or any other law, or they disclose liability to imposition of penalties like censure or reduction in rank, or dismissal. He merely sends his report to the proper authority who may or may not accept his conclusions on facts found by him on the evidence produced before him. In these circumstances it is impossible to hold that proceedings before the Inquiry Officer are of criminal or quasi-criminal nature. Obviously such proceedings cannot be said to be criminal proceedings governed by the terms and provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Inquiry Officer is not a Court within the Criminal Procedure Code, nor is the Govt. servant accused of any offence, nor is he liable to be sentenced for the commission of an offence under any penal law. These proceedings cannot be said to be of quasi-criminal in nature because the ultimate effect of these proceedings at the most is dismissal of the Government servant from service and the imposition of this penalty cannot be held to be of criminal nature. There is no provision in these rules which makes it incumbent on the Inquiry Officer to hold enquiry in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Criminal Procedure Code or to observe the provisions of S. 173(4) of that Code. In this view of the matter it cannot possibly be held that the Inquiry officer is bound to see that the provisions of Section 173(4) are observed before he proceeds to record evidence in the inquiry. If an Inquiry Officer refuses to comply with the provisions of Section 173(4), then it cannot be held that it is liable to be set aside by this Court in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred upon it under Article 226 of the Constitution