BIRENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Whether a fresh enquiry can be ordered if the disciplinary authority records a finding that the enquiry report is not convincing and appears to be vague, is the sole question involved in the writ-petition.

(3.) By now, law on this issue is well-settled. Normally, two situations may arise in a departmental proceeding viz; (i) the disciplinary authority agrees with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, or (ii) the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings recorded in the enquiry report. The first situation does not involve any technicality and the disciplinary proceeding concludes with the final order of the disciplinary authority. In the latter cases, irrespective of the conclusion recorded in the enquiry report the disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the findings recorded in the enquiry report is required to give reasons for his disagreement. When the disciplinary authority has disagreed with favourable findings recorded in favour of the delinquent employee, law enjoins upon the disciplinary authority to issue a second show-cause notice to the delinquent employee containing the reasons for disagreement with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer. In both the aforesaid situations fresh enquiry is not needed. However, there may be a third kind of situation, which may warrant a fresh enquiry. In cases where the enquiry proceeded in breach of rules of natural justice or it is found that the enquiry report suffers from technical lacuna, a denovo enquiry can be ordered. In cases, which do not fall under the aforesaid three categories, in appropriate cases, further enquiry can also be ordered provided, it causes no prejudice to the delinquent employee. In K.R. Deb Vs. the Collector of Central Excise, Shillong reported in (1971) 2 SCC 102, it was pointed out that if due to some serious defect which crept into the enquiry such as, the enquiry was held not properly or due to unavailability or for some other reason important witnesses were not examined, the disciplinary authority may ask the enquiry officer to record further evidence. In "Nand Kumar Verma Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others" reported in (2012) 3 SCC 580, the Honourable Supreme Court while examining a plea that on same charges a second enquiry is not permissible in law, held as under : "26. .......On general principles, there can be only one enquiry in respect of a charge for a particular misconduct and that is also what the rules usually provide. If, for some technical or other good ground, procedural or otherwise, the first enquiry or punishment or exoneration is found bad in law, there is no principle that a second enquiry cannot be initiated. Therefore, when a completed enquiry proceedings is set aside by a competent forum on a technical or on the ground of procedural infirmity, fresh proceedings on the same charges is permissible."