IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10187 of 2009 Shri Narain Prasad Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 3. 16.08.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on 13.8.2008 on one charge. An enquiry report came to be submitted on 29.12.2008 exonerating him. The respondents have sought to initiate fresh proceedings by order dated 2.1.2009. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has made a very short submission that once the proceeding was complete and there was a report of exoneration, the respondents could have proceeded thereafter in accordance with law but there was no justification for initiating a fresh departmental proceeding only because the report may not have been to their liking. Learned Counsel for the State from paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit submits that the disciplinary authority disagreed with the report of exoneration and therefore it was decided to get a fresh enquiry conducted. He submits that the petitioner has superannuated on 30.11.2008 and the fresh proceeding has been converted into one under Section 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. Once a departmental enquiry is held and a report is submitted, one part of the procedure is over and the second part begins. If the enquiry report was not acceptable to the respondents they had the power to proceed thereafter in accordance with law during the second phase of the proceeding. The impugned order contains no reason why 2 the respondents were of the opinion for the need of a fresh enquiry. If an order could have been supplanted by pleadings in the counter affidavit the situation would have been worse for the respondents. In no uncertain terms it states that the enquiry report was not palatable for them. If that were so, as held in 1971 SC 1447 ( K. R. Deb Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Shillong), to grant that power to the respondents would be granting them the liberty to hold enquiry till such time that an enquiry report of their liking was not submitted. “13 It seems to us that Rule 15, on the face of it, really provides for one inquiry but it may be possible if in a particular case there has been no proper enquiry because some serious defect has crept into the inquiry or some important witnesses were not available at the time of the inquiry or were not examined for some other reason, the Disciplinary Authority may ask the Inquiry Officer to record further evidence. But there is no provision in Rule 15 for completely setting aside previous inquiries on the ground that the report of the Inquiring Officer or Officers does not appeal to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority has enough powers to reconsider the evidence itself and come to its own conclusion under Rule 9. 14. In our view the rules do not contemplate an action such as was taken by the Collector on February 13, 1962. It seems to us that the Collector, instead of taking responsibility himself, was determined to get some officer to report against the appellant. The procedure adopted was not only not warranted by the rules but was harassing to the appellant. “ Similar view has been taken in (2002) 10 SCC 471 (Union of India Vs K. D. Pandey) at paragraph 5 as follows:- “5……In fact from the order made by the Railway Board as well as from that part of the file where the inquiry report made earlier is discussed, it is clear that specific findings have been given in respect of each of the charges after discussing the matter and, if that is so, we fail to understand as to how there could have been a remit to the inquiry authority for further inquiry. Indeed this resulted in second inquiry and not in a further inquiry on the same set of charges and the material on record. If this process is allowed the inquiries can go on perpetually until the view of the inquiry authority is in accord with that of the disciplinary authority and it would be abuse of the process of law……….” 3 . The impugned order dated 2.1.2009 is therefore not sustainable. As a consequence any further actions pursuant thereto also becomes unsustainable in law but without prejudice to the right of the respondents, as discussed hereinbefore. The impugned order dated 2.1.2009 is therefore set aside. The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)