SWAMI BIBHU DEO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by order dated 06.10.2012 appointing an inquiry officer for conducting a fresh inquiry into the allegations contained in memo dated 17.02.2012, the petitioner has approached this Court. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.

(2.) THE petitioner who was working as Executive Engineer, was served the charge -memo dated 17.02.2012. An inquiry was conducted and inquiry report dated 29.07.2012 was submitted finding the charges levelled against the petitioner, not proved. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 06.10.2012 another inquiry officer has been appointed for conducting a fresh inquiry into the allegations contained in charge -memo dated 17.02.2012.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that once the inquiry officer found the charges against the petitioner not proved, it was open to the respondent -authority to issue show -cause notice to the petitioner indicating the ground on which the disciplinary authority decided to disagree with the findings recorded in the departmental proceeding however, it was not open to the respondents to conduct a fresh inquiry into the allegations contained in charge -memo dated 17.02.2012. It was open to the disciplinary authority to pass order of punishment after complying with the requirements of the principle of natural justice however, it was not open to the respondent -authority to conduct a fresh inquiry into the matter. Relying on the decision in "K.R. Deb v. the Collector of Central Excise, Shillong", reported in : (1971) 2 SCC 102 and "Nand Kumar Verma v. State of Jharkhand and Others", reported in : (2012) 3 SCC 580, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case the impugned order dated 06.10.2012 is liable to be quashed.