SURESH PRASAD VERMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

(2.) The writ petition questions the action of the respondents dated 24.5.1988 at Annexure-4 by which a decision was taken to commence a fresh de novo departmental enquiry against the petitioner and in pursuance of which necessary communication on 4.6.1997 at Annexure-3, enclosing certain documents in respect of such de novo enquiry come to be issued.

(3.) The facts necessary for adjudication of the grievance of the writ petitioner would be that the petitioner while in service was served with a memo of charges. Annexure-2 would reveal that the charges were primarily of the nature of irregularities in appointment of retrenched and Muster Roll Workers. The departmental enquiry, led to the submission of an enquiry report on 20.6.1997. The Enquiry Officer by a reasoned order exonerated the petitioner. Soon thereafter the impugned order dated 24.5.1988 at Annexure-4 came to be issued for a fresh de novo enquiry. Annexure-4 would not spell out the reasons for such de novo enquiry. It would however record that such fresh enquiry be completed within a period of two months. The new Enquiry Officer by his communication dated 20.4.1999 while noticing that the delinquent being present the departmental representative was absent, returned the matter to the Government with certain comments concerning the limitations of a de novo enqiry in view of the earlier enquiry report and sought instructions upon the same. The petitioner superannuated on 31.10.2001 before anything further could happen in the matter.