IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 12676 of 2008. Reserved on: 24.12.2010. Decided on: 06.01.2011. __________________________________________________________ Dr. S.C. Rokha. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rule 1965 on 27.9.2999. The gist of the charge levelled against the petitioner was that he has not disbursed the salary of Smt. Sharda Chauhan, amounting to Rs.8661/- for the months of May and June, 1996 and had dishonestly misappropriated the said amount. The Deputy Secretary (Health), Shri Tilak Raj Sharma was appointed as Inquiry Officer. He could not complete the inquiry as per Annexure R-1, 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - dated 27.11.2003. Thereafter fresh charge sheet was issued to the petitioner vide Annexure A-4 on 28.2.2005. 2. The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he has already been exonerated by the Inquiry Officer pursuant to charge sheet dated 27.9.1999. He further contended that in these circumstances, fresh inquiry could not be initiated against him as per memorandum dated 28.2.2005. 3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has strenuously argued that earlier inquiry was never competed and, in fact, the Inquiry Officer has returned back the inquiry to the Secretary (Health) without taking any action or arriving at any conclusion. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on 27.9.1999. The Inquiry Officer has returned the inquiry as per Annexure R-1 to the Secretary (Health). The operative portion of the same reads thus:- “As per order sheet, Dr. Shiv Chand Rokha presented himself for enquiry on 28.12.02, 10.1.03, 27.1.03, 18.2.03 and 10.3.03 respectively. Though he has denied the charges, but the fact is that the office failed to supply the list documents in support of the charge-sheet with the pretext that the personal file of Dr. Rokha has been mis-placed. On account of non- availability of record, I am unable to proceed further in this case though sufficient period has been given to the office to locate the personal file of Dr. Shiv Chand Rokha, the charged officer. In view of above, I am remanding back the enquiry to the office of Secretary (Health) without any action as such.” - 3 - 6. It is evident from the language employed in this letter that the inquiry was neither completed nor any conclusion was drawn. The Inquiry Officer has simply returned the inquiry to the Secretary (Health). It is in these circumstances, that the fresh memorandum was issued to the petitioner on 28.2.2005. Petitioner has not chosen to file any reply to the same. It was expected from the petitioner to file reply to memorandum dated 28.2.2005. The petition was pre-mature. It is not one of those cases where earlier departmental proceedings have been concluded by the Inquiry Officer and despite that fresh memorandum issued on the same or similar charges. In those cases, fresh inquiry on the same or similar charges once concluded is not permissible under the law. However, in the instant case, the first inquiry was never completed and the same was returned by the Inquiry Officer to the Secretary (Health). It is in these circumstances that the memorandum dated 28.2.2005 has been issued to the petitioner. There is no illegality in the issuance of memorandum dated 28.2.2005 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. The interim order dated 24.7.2006 is vacated. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. January 06, 2011. (sck).