IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 72 of 2007 Pradeep Kumar Agarwal ………….Petitioner Versus Wildlife Institute of India and another …...Respondents. Present : Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate holding brief of Mr. R.K. Raizada, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Standing Counsel for the Union of India. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate holding brief of Mr. R.K. Raizada, Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Standing Counsel for the Union of India. The petitioner is an Administrative Officer in Wildlife Institute of India. The Wildlife Institute of India is a registered society registered under Societies Registration Act and its entire share holding is held by the Central Government and it is admittedly regulated and controlled by the Central Government. Consequently it is an instrumentality of the State as visualized under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner being an Administrative Officer is aggrieved by chargesheet dated 8.1.2007 issued to him pursuant to order issued by the Central Government on 4.12.2006. The case of the petitioner is that earlier the chargesheet was issued to him on 19.12.2003 in which he was exonerated vide order dated 16.1.2004. Consequently on the same set of charges another chargesheet was issued to him on 8.1.2007. It is this 2 chargesheet dated 8.1.2007 which has been challenged by the petitioner by means of the present writ petition. The petitioner has submitted that along with the present petitioner there was another higher officer in the same institute who was placed on the same footing as the petitioner, as on the same set of charges a chargesheet was issued to him in which he was exonerated. Thereafter again on the same set of charges a chargesheet was issued to him and being aggrieved by the said chargesheet, he filed a writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 21 of 2007 (S/B). A Division Bench of this Court while examining the entire matter came to the conclusion that once the petitioner has been exonerated, on the same set of charges second enquiry was not valid. Hence the said writ petition was allowed with the following observations :- “In the light of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that once a disciplinary inquiry has been closed and the matter has come to an end and the petitioner has been exonerated of the charges leveled against him, the respondents cannot restart the exercise of initiating a second inquiry on the same subject in the absence of any specific power to review, revise or reinitiate a second inquiry. In the absence of any legal provision, we are of the view that the second inquiry on the same subject cannot sustained and, accordingly, we quash the second chargesheet dated 8th January, 2006. The writ petition is allowed.” The matter stands covered by the said judgment of Division Bench of this Court inasmuch as the petitioner is also similarly placed as there were some charges 3 against the petitioner (in Writ Petition 21 of 2007 (S/B)) belonging to same institute who was exonerated of the said charges and who after again being chargesheeted on same set of charges approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition which was allowed. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate appearing for the Wildlife Institute has admitted that after issuance of second chargesheet on the same set of charges other employee has preferred a writ petition before this Court which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court and the facts of the said case are absolutely similar to that of present matter. Based on the aforesaid facts, writ petition is allowed in the same terms and conditions of order dated 8.6.2011 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 21 of 2007 (S.S. Lamba S/o Shri Gyani Ram Vs. Wildlife Institute of India and another). No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 26.7.2011 Avneet