IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 5042 of 2008 ( OA 687/98) Date of Decision : May 19, 2010 Head Constable Bali Ram Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others. Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondent : Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. Advocate General and Mr. P. M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General, for the respondents/State. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioner was appointed as a Constable by the State and on 22.7.1995 posted as Moharer Head Constable in Police Line Mandi. During the course of his employment he allegedly misconducted himself. As such, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. He was served with charge sheet on 23.7.1995. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sundernagar was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner of all the charges. The report of the Inquiry Officer was also accepted by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Superintendent of Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Police, Mandi, and in terms of office order dated 27.7.1996 petitioner was accorded all service benefits. Petitioner’s name also figured in the list of the candidates who were considered to be eligible for being promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector. 2. Surprisingly a fresh inquiry on the very same charges was again initiated by the Disciplinary Authority. The delinquent officer was again exonerated by the Inquiry Officer. Not content with the same, the Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice and vide order dated 20.2.1997 withheld two annual increments with cumulative effect. Petitioner’s appeal assailing the same was dismissed in terms of order dated 22.8.1997. 3. It is not disputed that subsequent inquiry was initiated with respect to the self same charge in relation to which the Inquiry Office had not only exonerated the petitioner but even the Disciplinary Authority had accepted the same. In these circumstances it was not open for the Disciplinary Authority to have instituted a subsequent inquiry. 4. The Apex Court in Kanailal Bera versus Union of India and others, (2007) 11 SCC 517 and K. R. Deb versus The Collector of Central Excise, Shillong, 1971 (2) SCC 102 has held that the second inquiry on the same charge which could not be proved during the first inquiry is not permissible unless some serious defect has crept into the inquiry or some important witness was not available at the time of the inquiry or could not be examined and was subsequently required to be examined. This is not the position which has emerged 3 from the record. Undoubtedly there is no defect in the first inquiry nor any material evidence had been left out. 5. In these circumstances the holding of the second inquiry for the very same charge was not permissible in law. Consequent action taken by the respondent – authorities in passing the order of withholding the petitioner’s increments being illegal is quashed. Similarly the action of the respondents in deleting the petitioner’s name from the list of candidates who were to be considered for promotion is illegal. As a result thereof, respondents are directed to take all consequential actions in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the order. 6. With the aforesaid observations the present petition stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. May 19, 2010 (PK)