RE SANJIB K. SEN Vs. DIRECTOR (ADMN) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DEPT. OF SUPPLY DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF SUPPLIES AND DISPOSALS (VIGILANCE DEPT.)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court: In this Writ application the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated January 8, 1973 whereby the Director -General, Supplies & Disposals, Vigilance Section, has proposed to start inquiry proceedings against the petitioner on the ground of some allegations mentioned in the said order. The facts of the case may briefly be stated as follows: On February 23, 1960, the petitioner joined the post of Examiner of Stores, Engineering, at the office of the Director of Inspector, Government of India. Sometime between July and August, 1962 according to the respondents the petitioner committed certain acts of misconduct. On July 1965 the Director -General, Supplies & Disposals, Govt. of India proposed to hold an enquiry against the petitioner under Central Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1964, in respect of those alleged acts of misconduct. According to the respondents, similar acts of misconduct were also committed by one Mr. Swaminathan. On or about December 9, 1966 disciplinary proceedings were started against the petitioner and Swaminathan and a joint enquiry was held by the Inquiry Officer on December 24, 1966, the Inquiry Officer found that the charges against the petitioner and Mr. Swaminathan were proved. On December 12, 1967, the Director -General, Supplies & Disposals proposed to impose penalty of removal of the petitioner and asked him to make representation why the penalty should not be imposed. On February 8, 1968, the Director -General, Supplies & Disposals decided to take disciplinary action against the petitioner and Swaminathan. On March 7, 1968, the petitioner was removed from service with immediate effect. The said Swaminathan was also compulsorily retired from the service on the basis of the findings of the said Inquiry Officer. Mr. Swaminathan, however, moved an application under Art. 226 for quashing the said order. Mukharji J. on July 20, 1971, has decided in favour of Mr. Swaminathan and made the rule absolute. The material portions of the said judgment read as follows:

(2.) As stated earlier, the allegations against the petitioner and Mr. Swaminathan were enquired into jointly by the Inquiry Officer on December 9, 1966. But the petitioner unlike Mr. Swaminathan, did not choose to move the Writ Court for quashing the order of removal against him. After the rule was made absolute in favour of Mr. Swaminathan the petitioner made representation to the respondents on September 6, 1971, for reconsideration of his case in the light of the said High Court decision in favour of Mr. Swaminathan. On March 13, 1972, the respondents after consideration of the said representation withdrew the original order of removal of the petitioner dated March 7, 1968. The petitioner thereafter reported for duty on March 17, 1972. On January 8, 1973, the impugned order was made whereby the Director -General, Supplies & Disposals informed the petitioner that a fresh enquiry would be held against the petitioner.

(3.) Mr. B.C. Dutt, counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner was removed from service by the respondent after termination of disciplinary proceedings against him. The respondents thereafter withdraw the said order of removal and reinstated the petitioner. A second enquiry with respect to the same allegations which took place in 1962 is not permissible in law. Reliance has been placed by him on (5) K.R. Deb v/s. The Collector of Central Excise Shillong : A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1447, (3) Dwarkachand v/s. State of Rajasthan : A.I.R. 1958 Raj. 38. His second contention is that as a result of the withdrawal of the order of removal on March 13, 1972, the petitioner who was working in other private concern had to leave the job and joined, his original post. The respondents, having now decided to start a second enquiry against the petitioner on the basis of the previous allegations, are estopped from initiating again any disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner.