DAYA SHANKER SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged a vigilance enquiry. In our opinion no writ lies against a vigilance enquiry, since such enquiry does not give rise to any cause of action against which the petitioner can be aggrieved.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the same charges the petitioner was exonerated in a disciplinary enquiry and hence subsequently a vigilance enquiry cannot be held. We do not agree with this submission. A vigilance enquiry is only in the nature of a preliminary enquiry and hence the petitioner can have no grievance as a preliminary enquiry is only for the subjective satisfaction of the employer. It is possible that some fresh evidence or material may have become available to the department implicating the petitioner in some misconduct that may not have been available earlier. Hence there is no absolute bar to holding of a fresh enquiry, even assuming that he was exonerated earlier, provided there is some fresh material. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the G.O. dated December 20, 1965 in support of his submission that after an employee has been exonerated in an enquiry a fresh enquiry or a vigilance enquiry cannot be held. We are of the opinion for the reasons given, above that the said G.O. is only directory and not mandatory in nature.

(3.) The writ petition is dismissed.