BILAT ROY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) The Petitioner has impugned the order of the Commissioner, Bhagalpur-cum-Munger Division dated 23rd November, 1992 (Annexure-6), whereby he has directed that a new enquiry officer be appointed and a fresh enquiry be made into the charges levelled against the Petitioner, and that the Petitioner be kept under suspension during the period of the enquiry. The order (Annexure-6) has been challenged on the ground that the same charges were earlier enquired into by an enquiry officer. Simultaneously, the Petitioner was also prosecuted before a criminal court. The prosecution ended in the acquittal of the Petitioner. In the departmental proceeding as well, the enquiry officer found that the charges against the Petitioner had not been proved. The report of the enquiry officer was accepted by the District Magistrate, Khagaria, by his order dated 29.5.1991 (Annexure-4). He also noticed the fact that the Petitioner had been acquitted in the criminal case. The disciplinary proceeding having ended in favour of the Petitioner, the District Magistrate passed a consequential order under Annexure-5 for payment of dues etc. to the Petitioner. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner on 23rd November, 1992.

(3.) It is well-settled that after an enquiry has been conducted into the charges levelled against an employee, it is open to the disciplinary authority to agree or not to agree with the findings of the enquiry officer. In case the disciplinary authority agrees with the finding of the enquiry officer, he may pass an order accordingly. In case he does not agree with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer, and he proposes to pass an order against the delinquent employee, it is open to him to issue a notice to the delinquent employee calling upon him to show cause why an order be not passed against him. After complying with the principles of natural justice he may pass an order in accordance with law having regard to the representation made by the delinquent employee. Apart from these two situations, it may be that the disciplinary authority may feel the need for further enquiry. If he is not satisfied with the report of the enquiry officer, he may thereafter order the enquiry officer to make a further enquiry in the light of his directions. What is, however, deprecated by the courts is the practice of asking some other enquiry officer to make an enquiry even in the absence of allegations which disqualify the enquiry officer from making an enquiry. The Supreme Court has observed that it is not open to the disciplinary authority to get the enquiry conducted by different enquiry officers till such time as one of them records a finding of guilt against the delinquent Government servant. We are, therefore, of the view that the direction contained in Annexure-6 is clearly unwarranted.