ASHWANI KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide memorandum dated 9.11.1992. He was given opportunity to make representation against the memorandum. He filed his written representation against the memorandum. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of censure - upon the petitioner on 23.2.1994. He was no held responsible for the pecuniary loss sustained by the Government to the extent of 21,600/ -. However, vide office order dated 11.9.1995, the memorandum dated 9.11.1992 was withdrawn in the light of letter dated 1.5.1995. In sequel to office order dated 11.9.1995 fresh memorandum was served upon the petitioner on 27.9.1995 vide Annexure A -1. The Inquiry Officer was appointed on 21.10.1995. The petitioner has assailed the decision of the respondents whereby fresh inquiry has been instituted against him on the basis of Annexures A -1 to A -3.

(2.) MR . Ashwani Kumar Sharma, Advocate has strenuously argued that once the disciplinary proceedings had been initiated and the penalty of ˜censure was imposed upon the petitioner, the respondents could not hold fresh inquiry on the same or similar charges on the basis of letter dated 1.5.1995 issued by the Superintending Engineer. He further contended that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as per instruction No. 1 appended to rule 17 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 is a judicial decision and once it is arrived at it is final and cannot be varied by that authority. He has also relied upon instruction 3 appended to rule 29 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.