SANTLAL CHAUDHARY Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has put to challenge the order, dated 7.5.2014, passed, in CWJC No. 8822 of 2014, by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court, while dismissing the writ petition, has given liberty by observing that since the second show cause notice has already been issued, it is left open to the petitioner (i.e., appellant herein) to assail any order of punishment, which may visit him, including the Patna validity of the decision of the respondents to hold a second enquiry inasmuch as the previous enquiry, according to the writ petitioner, had been purportedly completed and the law, according to the writ petition, does not envisage a second enquiry and/or the manner in which the second enquiry had been conducted. The material facts, which gave rise to the present appeal, may, in brief, be set out as under:--

(2.) In the backdrop of the facts indicated above, the second writ petition, namely, CWJC No. 8822 of 2013, was dismissed, on 7.5.2014, with the liberty to the writ petitioner to assail (as indicated in the preceding paragraph of this order), any order of punishment, which may visit him, including the validity of the decision of the respondents to hold a second or fresh enquiry.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order, dated 7.5.2014, passed, in CWJC No. 8822 of 2013, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed, the writ petitioner is, in appeal, before us, on the ground that no fresh enquiry can be initiated against him on the same set of facts on which the earlier enquiry had been initiated and if Disciplinary Authority found the first enquiry report not agreeable, it could have assigned its reasons and, then, having given necessary opportunity to the writ petitioner to have his say in the matter, appropriate order(s), resuming the fresh enquiry could have been passed, but by no means, a fresh enquiry, could have been ordered inasmuch as fresh enquiry is de hors the relevant rule, i.e., Rule 18 of the 2005 Rules.