IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7641 of 2010 ====================================================== Ramesh Jha S/O Late Raj Narayan Jha, R/O Village -Mehath, P.S.- Jhanjharpur, District- Madhubani. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Its Chief Secretary, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of General Administration, (Personnel & Administrative Reforms) ,Government of Bihar. 3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of Bihar. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== 3 29-09-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner, a Block Development Officer was proceeded with departmentally by a memo of charge duly replied whereafter an enquiry report came to be submitted on 11.12.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that based on this enquiry report punishment of censure and stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect was proposed. Reliance on certain alleged observations of the Chief Secretary made in the file of another delinquent alleged to be with regard to similar matter, cannot justify the respondents in proceeding with a de novo enquiry with regard to the petitioner also. The findings in the earlier enquiry with regard to the petitioner are clear and specific. De novo enquiry is not justified. Counsel for the State submits that the order of the Chief 2 Secretary dated 09.01.2010 is very specific. It considers the seriousness of the allegation with regard to large scale misuser of the funds meant for the beneficiaries under the Indira Awas Yojna wrongly deposited in the Dehti PACS, contrary to the Government Instructions for deposit of the same in a nationalized Bank and consequent misappropriation. The Chief Secretary has further opined that proper evidence on behalf of the prosecution was not placed before the Inquiry Officer vitiating the enquiry itself. If an enquiry has been completed and a report has been submitted, the disciplinary authority if not satisfied has the discretion to differ with the enquiry report and proceed thereafter in accordance with the law. But in a case where no proper enquiry has been held in accordance with the law and it has been opined by a senior functionary of the rank of Chief Secretary of the State that proper evidence on behalf of the prosecution was not placed, the Court has no hesitation in holding that it cannot be described as an enquiry held in accordance with the law. A de novo enquiry in such circumstance is justified. There shall always be a difference between a defective enquiry and no enquiry at all. The present case falls in the latter category. The petitioner has himself placed on record similar orders where the Court declined interference with the de novo 3 enquiry and did not approve of prolonged suspension only. Even otherwise on the facts of the submission of the petitioner that no such decision with regard to him could not have been taken on any generalization, does not appeal to the Court considering the allegations of large misappropriation of government money. The materials of the allegations are common. The deficiencies found in the enquiry are common. The suspension of the petitioner is stated to have been already revoked. The Court finds substance in the submission of the petitioner that notwithstanding the aforesaid any lawful finding in the earlier enquiry report based on evidence cannot be brushed away or ignored in the fresh enquiry except for justified and cogent reasons. The writ application stands disposed. Bhardwaj/- (Navin Sinha, J)