RAJINDER KUMAR KASHYAP Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, during the course of hearing the matter, has, urged before this Court, that since the reliefs, as existing at clauses (i) and (ii), have come to be afforded in his favour, consequently it is urged that he, is, not pressing the reliefs recited, at, clause (i) and (ii) of the prayer clause of the writ petition. The only surviving relief which, is, pressed, is, at clause (iii) of the relief clause.

(2.) PRECEDING to the issuance of Annexures P -1 and P -4, by the disciplinary authority, upon the delinquent/petitioner, the disciplinary authority/respondents, had carried out an inquiry against the petitioner/delinquent comprised, in, Annexure R -1. Initially, it is necessary, to, unveil on a reading of Annexure R -1, as, also on a reading of Annexures P -1 and P -4, as, to whether both relate to the same subject matter or not. A perusal of Annexure R -1, records the fact of the disciplinary authority, having proceeded against the delinquent/petitioner, for, certain omissions, lapses and shortcomings, arising from his purported negligence, in, pursuing Arbitration case No. 37 of 2011, titled as Mahesh Puri versus State of H.P. and Arbitration case No. 33 of 2011 titled as Kamlesh Puri versus State of H.P. A comparative reading of Annexure R -1 and of Annexures P -1 and P -4, brings to the surface the fact of both, reciting therein, relating to a similar or an analogous subject matter, in, as such, as, both having proceeded and now proposing or contemplating to proceed against the petitioner for purported omissions, lapses and shortcomings, arising from his purported negligence, in, pursuing Arbitration cases No. 33 and 37 of 2011. In the face of similarity or analogous of the subject matter comprised in Annexure R -1 and of the one comprised in -4, it is necessary, to, determine, on, a discerning circumspective study of the material on record, as, to whether the contemplated or proposed denovo inquiry, by the disciplinary authority, against the petitioner/delinquent, comprised, in, issuance of Annexures P -1 and P -4, is tenable or vindicable. In rendering determination qua the facet, it is necessary to peruse Annexure R -1.

(3.) NONETHELESS the respondent/disciplinary authority proceeded to issue Annexures P -1 and P -4. It is settled law, as, laid down in a judgment reported in, 1997 (5) SLR 508 titled as R. Rama Rao versus A.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd & Anr., that once the disciplinary inquiry, is, conducted and concluded, unless the service rules mandate, initiating or holding of de nove inquiry, into the same charges, it is, not open for the disciplinary authority/respondents, to proceed to order the holding of a de nove inquiry, qua, similar or analogous imputation of misconduct/charge.