(1.) THE appellant-writ petitioner was proceeded departmentally, vide proceedings dated 6.1.1999 and the Co-operative Sub-Registrar (Credit and Marketing), Cheyyar was appointed as the enquiry officer. THE said Co-operative Sub-Registrar (Credit and Marketing) conducted enquiry and submitted an enquiry report in October 1999. However, no final order was passed in the proceedings and subsequently, for the same set of allegations and charges, fresh proceedings were initiated in Na.Ka.No.4464/98 Sa.Pa., dated 4.1.2002. Being aggrieved, the appellant-writ petitioner challenged the said fresh proceedings, with a prayer to direct the respondents to drop further action. THE learned single Judge, in view of the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, dismissed the Writ Petition, by the impugned order dated 18.12.2007 in W.P.No.659 of 2003.
(2.) LEARNED Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that fresh enquiry is permissible for the same set of charges and allegations. According to the respondents, the Sub-Registrar (Credit & Marketing) who was appointed as enquiry officer, did not cover all aspects of the enquiry and it was vague and was asked to submit a report again, but having not done so, the proceedings were initiated against the enquiry officer.
(3.) SIMILAR matter fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of K.R.Deb vs. Collector, Central Excise, Shillong, reported in AIR 1971 SC 1447. In the said case, taking into consideration Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, the Supreme Court, while observing that the said Rule does not contemplate successive inquiries, further held that if there is some defect in the inquiry conducted by the inquiry officer, the Disciplinary Authority can direct the Inquiry Officer to conduct further inquiries in respect of that matter, but it cannot direct a fresh inquiry to be conducted by some other officer.