1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2536/2007 Swaroop Tankha Vs. The Managing Director, URMUL Dairy, Biakner & Ors. Date of Order :: 20.5.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Jaidev Singh Bhati, for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Bhati, for the respondents No.1 to 3. ... Under a memorandum dated 22.6.2005 disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and that culminated into an order of dismissal dated 7.12.2005. A petition for writ giving challenge to the order dated 7.12.2005 came to be accepted by this Court on 13.7.2006 by setting aside the order aforesaid. This Court also set aside the proceedings conducted by the inquiry officer in pursuant to the charge- sheet dated 22.6.2005, consequently, the Managing Director of the respondent-Federation on 28.8.2006 reinstated the petitioner in service and by the order dated 6.3.2007 an inquiry officer was appointed to inquire into the allegations levelled against the petitioner under the charge-sheet dated 22.6.2005. Being aggrieved by the same this petition for writ is preferred. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that once the petitioner was subjected to an inquiry and that culminated into an order of penalty it was not open for the respondents to re-initiate the inquiry proceedings. 2 Per contra the stand of the respondent-Federation is that by the judgment dated 13.7.2006 this Court set aside the order of penalty and also the proceedings conducted by the inquiry officer being in violation of the procedure prescribed under the Regulation 12 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Employees (Disciplinary Action & Appeal) Regulations, 1980 (hereinafter to be referred to as, the Regulations of 1980), as such, it was open for the employer to make an enquiry as per law. It is also stated by Sh. P.S. Bhati, learned counsel for the respondent-Federation that the proceedings in question have already culminated into an order of penalty, and as such, this petition for writ has become infructuous. Having considered the arguments advanced and from perusal of the documents available, it is apparent that this Court by the order dated 13.7.2006 quashed the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the inquiry proceedings being conducted in violation of the procedure prescribed under the Regulations of 1980. The charge-sheet dated 22.6.2005 was neither under challenge in the writ petition filed by the petitioner earlier nor that was quashed by this Court vide judgment dated 13.7.2006. Looking to the fact that the order of penalty dated 7.12.2005 was quashed only because of procedural irregularities, it was 3 certainly open for the employer to hold the inquiry de novo as per the procedure prescribed. No wrong, therefore, is made by the Federation while appointing the inquiry officer to proceed against the petitioner. As such, this petition for writ is having no merit and the same is dismissed. It is open for the petitioner to assail validity of the order dated 7.8.2007 by way of availing appropriate remedy. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal