IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6596 of 2010 RANJIT ROY, son of late Narayan Prasad Yadav, R/o 204, Shanti Niketan, Boring Road, P.S. Srikrishnapuri, District-Patna. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Department of Co-Operative, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The secretary Department of Co-operative, Govt. of Bihar, of Patna. 3. The Registrar Co-operative Society, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Patna commissionary, Patna. 5. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Circle Biharshariff, dist-Nalanda. ----------- 2 5.1.2011 In this writ application petitioner has challenged the order of the Registrar Co-operative Societies dated 31.3.2010, as contained in Annexure-5, by which he has appointed a fresh Inquiry Officer for holding a fresh inquiry against the petitioner, finding that the earlier inquiry report submitted by the Conducting Officer was ‘vitiated’ and ‘ab initio void’ in view of recommendation of the Conducting Officer for exoneration of the petitioner. It is no longer in dispute that the disciplinary authority can differ with the inquiry report of the conducting officer and can issue show cause notice to the delinquent assigning reasons for such difference. It is also not in dispute that, in the event some evidence are not been produced or considered in the inquiry, for valid reasons, the disciplinary 2 authority can direct the Inquiry Officer to conduct further inquiry. However, no law provides that, in case the disciplinary authority finds the report of the Conducting Officer in favour of the delinquent, he can simply brush it aside and direct for a fresh inquiry. It has been made clear, by the Apex Court and by this Court a number of times, that if this liberty to the disciplinary authority is accepted as available in law, an inquiry against the delinquent may never become final and the disciplinary authority may go on directing for fresh inquiry repeatedly against the delinquent till a report to his satisfaction is submitted by the conducting officer. This settle position of law needs no more elaboration. In the circumstances, the impugned order of Registrar dated 31.3.2010, as contained in Annexure-5, is quashed. However, he will be at liberty to proceed in the matter on the basis of the inquiry report submitted by the Conducting Officer in accordance with law. Prakash ( J.N.Singh, J.)