IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. (T) No. 16693 of 2008. Decided on 09.07. 2010. Ashwani Kumar. ….. Petitioner. -Versus- H.R.T.C. and Others. …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the petitioner. : Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate vice Mr. Madan Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral): Whether an employer, having decided to conduct a domestic enquiry and the enquiry having been conducted, and employer if not satisfied with the report of enquiry officer is free to order a de-novo enquiry, is the question raised in this writ petition. 2. The writ petitioner was working as Driver under respondent-Corporation. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on account of the alleged misbehaviour with the office staff, violation of conduct rules and non-compliance of duties etc.. A domestic enquiry was ordered and in the report dated 24.5.2003, the enquiry officer found that the charges were not proved. 2 3. According to the Regional Manager, he was not happy with the report and hence, he ordered a de-novo enquiry as per impugned office order. The relevant extract of the office order reads as under: “And whereas the undersigned considered in Inquiry report and observed that the findings of the Inquiry authority are one sided, as the Inquiry authority has ignored the aspect of misbehaviour conducted by the accused with the staff of the Regional Officer, including Supdtt. (Admn.). Moreover, the charge No. 2 & 3 has also not been considered in depth. As such, the undersigned does not agree with the findings of the Inquiring authority. Hence the undersigned has come to the conclusion that Denovo inquiry should be conducted in the case.” 4. The order as extracted above, shows that the de-novo enquiry is ordered only on account of the fact that the disciplinary authority is not satisfied with the alleged one sided report of the enquiry officer. According to the disciplinary authority, he could not agree with the findings of the enquiry officer. It is not as if the disciplinary authority is bound to accept the report of the enquiry officer. He is free to reverse the findings, but after serving notice on the delinquent concerned, indicating the tentative reasons for disagreeing with the findings. The disciplinary authority cannot under law keep on ordering enquiries until he is satisfied with the report, he expects from the enquiry officer. That would be patently arbitrary and unreasonable. True, as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation, the de-novo enquiry can 3 be ordered in case there are procedural lapses rendering the very enquiry a force. That is not the situation in the instant case. It is a case, where the disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer. If that be so, the disciplinary authority cannot order a de-novo enquiry. After receiving the enquiry report, the only option left to the employer if he does not agree with the findings, is to give notice to the delinquent, indicating tentative reasons for reversing the findings and proceed accordingly. With liberty to such opportunity, if required, Annexure A-2 is set aside. 5. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application (s), if any. Copy dasti, on usual terms. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 9th July, 2010 (bhupender/Vs)