OM PRAKASH JOSHI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the question which calls for determination is as to whether a disciplinary enquiry could be initiated against the petitioner after proceedings were dropped against him as a result of an earlier preliminary enquiry.

(2.) THE facts which have given rise to this writ petition may be briefly stated. THE petitioner is employed as a Copyist in the court of District and Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. A complaint was filed against him by one Kalyan Das Joshi on December 11, 1967. Another complaint was filed by the same person on January 21, 1968. A third complaint was also filed by Kalyan Das against the petitioner on February 14, 1968. In the last complaint, an allegation was also made amongst others that the petitioner was residing with his father and although he was not residing in a rented house, but he was drawing house rent allowance. THE learned District Judge, Jodhpur appointed the Judge, Small Causes Court, Jodhpur to make a preliminary enquiry in respect of two matters namely, as to whether the petitioner prosecuted higher studies without obtaining prior permission and as to whether he was illegally drawing house rent allowance. THE Enquiry Officer directed the petitioner to submit his explanation. In his reply dated May 25, 1968 the petitioner Om Prakash admitted that he had prosecuted further studies without obtaining permission. As regards the question of drawing house rent allowance, the petitioner Om Prakash submitted that he was not residing with his father or in the house of his father, because of strained relations between them. In the course of the preliminary enquiry, the complainant did not appear and the Enquiry Officer in his report dated January 7, 1971 held that the petitioner prosecuted further studies and appeared at the B. A. Examination without the permission of the department, as admitted by him. However, as regards the question of illegally drawing house rent allowance, the allegation was not found proved as no evidence was led by the complainant in respect there of. THE learned District Judge, by his order dated February 9, 1971, held that the allegations were not proved as the complainant failed to produce any evidence, except that the petitioner Om Prakash himself admitted that he pro-secuted further studies and appeared at B. A. Examination without obtaining permission Acting upon the admission of the petitioner, the learned District Judge imposed the penalty of stoppage of grade increment for a period of 6 months without future effect, upon the petitioner in respect of the charge of prosecuting further studies without obtaining permission for the same.

(3.) THE proposition which has been propounded by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that if a disciplinary enquiry has been held earlier in respect of a specific charge resulting in the exoneration of the employee, then a second disciplinary enquiry on the same facts cannot be ordered, unless there is a provision for reviewing an order of exoneration, in the relevant service rules or in any other law for the time being in force. In Dwarka Chand's case (supra), a division bench of this Court held that it was not open to a higher authority to order a fresh disciplinary enquiry, ignoring the result of the earlier disciplinary enquiry exonerating the public servant and the following observations were made in this regard :- "it was urged on behalf of the State that if this view is taken, it might result in great prejudice to the State inasmuch as the person holding the first enquiry might have held it in a very slipshod manner fas alleged in this case) or even dishonestly and the State would be helpless. We must say that we are not impressed by this argument for two reasons. In the first place, if a superior officer holds a departmental enquiry in a very slip-shod manner or even dishonestly, the State can certainly take action against that superior officer and in an extreme case even dismiss him for his dishonesty in the departmental enquiry which he conducts. That would in our opinion, be a salutary check which would prevent those holding departmental enquiries from acting in a slipshod manner or dishonestly. In the second place, if the case is one like the present, it would, in our opinion, be open to the State to prosecute a person like the applicant in a Court of law in spite of what a d partmemtal officer might have decided in the departmental enquiry one way or the other. THErefore, the danger to the State is really not so great as has been submitted. On the other hand, if we were to hold hat a second departmental enquiry could be ordered after the previous one has resulted in the exoneration of a public servant, the danger of harassment to the public servant would, in our opinion, be immense. If it were possible to ignore the result of an earlier departmental enquiry, then there will be nothing to prevent a superior officer, if he were so minded, to order a second or a third or a fourth or even a fifth departmental enquiry after the earlier ones had resulted in the exoneration of a public servant. "