HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.18894 of 2003 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent in reopening the case and continuing the enquiry proceedings which were closed by the third respondent vide proceedings dated 28/08/2002 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice, and consequently, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to comply with the findings of the third respondent and drop the charges leveled against him. It appears, the first petitioner while working as a deputy manager and the second petitioner while working as an administrative officer with the first respondent insurance company were proceeded with departmentally for certain alleged misconduct. An enquiry officer was appointed. Since the charges framed against both the petitioners are common, common enquiry was ordered. The enquiry officer was appointed on 24/04/2002 and on 28/08/2002 the following order was passed: “COMMON PROCEEDINGS OF DEPARTMENTAL INQUIRY AGAINST: 1. Shri K.Adam, Deputy Manager, HRO, Hyderabad Charged Officer 2. Shri M.R.N.Tagore, Admn.Officer, Kukatpally DO, Hyderabad Charged Officer 3. Dr.P.Gangadharam, Admn.Officer, Hyderabad DO-III, Charged Officer Present: 1. Ms.Deepa P.Raghavan, Inquiry Officer 2. Shri P.Siva Kumar, Asst.Manager, Hyderabad DO-I, Presenting Officer 3. Shri K.Adam, Deputy Manager, HRO, Hyderabad Charged Officer 4. Shri V.Raju, Sr.DM, DO-I, Secunderabad – Defence Assistant of Mr.K.Adam, Charged Officer 5. Shri M.R.N.Tagore, Admn.Officer, Kukatpally DO, Hyderabad Charged Officer 6. Shri C.Ashok, Sr.DM, Vijayawada DO-Defence Assistant of Mr.M.R.N.Tagore, Charged Officer 7. Dr.P.Gangadharam, Admn.Officer, Hyderabad D0-III, Charged Officer 8. Dr.D.Rajanikanth, AM, Guntur DO – Defence Assistant of Dr.P.Gangadharam, Charged Officer The meeting was called to attention at 11.15 a.m. However, the meeting was further postponed to 11.40 a.m. at the requet of the Presenting Officer. The Presenting Officer has expressed his withdrawal as PO from the above case as he indicates that, vide copy of order dated 19/08/2002 served on him at 11.40 a.m. today by Shr S.Satya Kishore, AM, Vigilance Officer, HRO, He has been relieved of the role of Presenting Officer. The Charged Officers and their Defence Assistants presented their submission as per enclosure, recording their objections to the manner in which the PO has proceeded on certain issues in the earlier proceedings as well as the sudden manner in which the PO has been withdrawn. RULING OF THE INQUIRY OFFICER The regular proceedings held on 22/07/2002 was adjourned to 20/08/2002 on account of the PO’s inability to present his MW. The meeting on 20/08/2002 was postponed to 27/08/2002 at the request of the PO, due to his inability to attend the proceedings. On 27/08/2002 at 11.00 a.m. when the House was called to order, PO expressed his inability to present his MW, thereby necessitating proceedings to be adjourned to 11.00 a.m. on 28/08/2002. The PO, on 28/08/2002 has indicated his withdrawal of his rule as PO in this case on account of an order dated 19/08/2002 stated to be served on him by Shri S.Satya Kishore, AM, Vigilance Officer, HRO at 11.40 a.m. on 28/08/2002. The IO surmises and opines that management has failed to present its case against the Charged Officers mentioned above, at the several hearings held since 12/06/2002, and hence, dismisses the cases against the Charged Officers.” Thereafter, fourth respondent was appointed as an enquiry officer by an order dated 19/08/2002. This writ petition is filed firstly to implement the order dated 28/08/2002 and discharge and drop all the charges leveled against the petitioners, and secondly, it is stated that the appointment of a second enquiry officer is not valid. There is no necessity of going into all the details. The above order itself would indicate that the enquiry was closed on frivolous and silly grounds. According to the enquiry officer, the Presenting Officer was not able to place all the records relevant for the purpose of enquiry, therefore, the enquiry was closed. None of the witnesses were examined nor any list of witnesses was furnished. At that stage, the enquiry officer seems to have annoyed with the disciplinary authority and the departmental representative, and then came to the conclusion that the management has failed to present its case and failed to prove the charge and enquiry may be closed. This pedantic approach made by an enquiry officer is arbitrary and illegal. He should have waited for production of the records and conduct an enquiry as required under law. Simply because the management has not produced the record, he could not state that the management failed to prove the charges and the charges need to be dropped. Further, the disciplinary authority has every right either to differ with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer or to conduct a fresh enquiry by appointing another enquiry officer in a given case. In this case, it appears after the proceedings dated 28/08/2002, a second enquiry officer was appointed. However, in view of the stay granted by this Court, no further proceedings have taken place. Now, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that in view of the fact that the petitioner is going to attain the age of superannuation in the month of February, 2011, there is no necessity of conducting any further enquiry and he was denied two promotions earlier only in view of the pendency of the writ petition. These are all the matters to be considered by disciplinary authority after conducting an enquiry, if any necessary. Under those circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the authorities to conduct fresh enquiry, if any necessary, by appointing a second enquiry officer and complete the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and after completing of the enquiry, the case of the petitioner for his promotions which were due along with his juniors may also be considered and all his retirement benefits shall be settled as per his eligibility, if any he deserves. If the enquiry is not completed within two months, it must be deemed that the enquiry initiated against the petitioner stands abated. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 28th July, 2010 NOTE: Furnish C.C. by one week. B/o. SKM