WP(C) 2007/2011 BEFORE HON BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR JUSTICE P.K.MUSAHARY ( Amitava Roy,J) The judgment and order dated 14.9.2010 passed by the learned Ce ntral Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati ( hereinafter referred t o as the ’Tribunal’) rendered in O.A. No.234/2010 forms the subject matter of c hallenge in the instant petition. We have heard Mr UK Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr C Baruah, learned Central Govt. Standing Counsel appearing for the responden ts. The facts in brief, would be necessary to appreciate the rival s ubmissions. The petitioner, who was initially appointed as Technician Grade I (1 ) with the Regional Research Laboratory, Jorhat, Assam, in the year 1997, was pr omoted to the post of Technical Assistant (II)(1) in the same establishment. O n detection of some anomaly with regard to the utilization of LTC facility for t he block year 1986-89, a memorandum of charges dated 26.9.1997 was served on him thus initiating a departmental proceeding under Rule 14 of CCS ( CCA) Rules, 19 65 ( hereafter referred to as the ’ Rules’)alleging that he had obtained false a nd fictitious Local Excess Fare Tickets. The petitioner having denied the charge , the enquiry was proceeded with and eventually vide order dated 16.9.1999 the penalty of reduction of pay of Rs.175/- for a period of one year without cumulat ive effect was imposed. His statutory appeal having failed to evoke any respons e, he along with two others (including Ram Kanta Das, applicant in O.A. No.234/2 010) approached the learned Tribunal individually , whereupon O.A. Nos.316, 317 and 318 of 2001 were registered. By a common judgment dated 23.5.2002 the proce edings were set aside due to violation of procedural safeguards and the discipli nary authority was left at liberty to initiate measures indicated in Rule 14(5)( a) of the Rules and record its findings on the charge after taking such evidenc e as considered fit. Subsequent thereto, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 26.11.2002 infli cted the penalty of reduction of pay by five stages from Rs.7900/- to 6900/- i n the pay scale of Rs.6500/- 10500/-for a period of three years with cumulative effect. In the statutory appeal filed, the penalty was scaled down to reductio n of his pay by three stages in his time scale of pay for a period of three year s with cumulative effect. Being still aggrieved, the petitioner preferred O.A. N o.37/2005 before the Tribunal contending that no opportunity was granted to him in the departmental proceeding . By the judgment and order dated 27.2.2007 this Original Application was allowed holding that the procedure adopted by the disc iplinary authority was not in conformity with the Rules. While interfering with the orders of penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority as well as by the ap pellate authority, the respondents were allowed to proceed de novo, if so desire d. By O.M. dated 24.8.07, the petitioner was informed of the decision of the disciplinary authority to take a fresh de novo enquiry against him in terms o f Rule 14 of the Rules. However, admittedly no fresh memorandum of charge was is sued against him. His representations dated 15.10.07 and 12.11.07 remained unh eeded. The Enquiry Officer eventually submitted a report holding that the charg es had been proved- by the own statement of admission of the Charged Officer. Though an opportunity was granted to the petitioner to represent against the re port and he did so, the disciplinary authority by his order dated 13.4.2009 infl icted the penalty of reduction of pay by three stages for a period of three yea rs with cumulative effect. The petitioner’s statutory appeal did not evoke any r esult. He therefore returned to the learned Tribunal again with O.A. No.234/2010 . By the judgment and order impugned herein, the challenge was negated. Mr Nair with reference to the Government of India instructions published below Rule 27 of the Rules contained in the Swamy s Compilation of CCS( CCA) Rules ha s urged that, having regard to the nature and extent of the opportunity grant ed to the respondents in the judgment and order dated 27.2.2007, it was incumben t on the part of the disciplinary authority, if so advised, to issue a fresh mem orandum of charge(s) against the petitioner. According to Mr Nair, as no such i nitiative had been taken and by O.M. dated 24.8.2007 it proceeded on the bas is of the earlier memorandum of charge dated 26.9.1997, the proceedings that en sued are to be adjudged non est in law and thus the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal warrants interference in the interest of justice. Mr Baruah in response, has argued that the disciplinary authority having been left at liberty to proceed afresh with the departmental proceeding already initiated after the annulment of the orders of penalty passed therein, it was not necessary for it to issue any fresh memorandum of charge. He, however, has n ot questioned the applicability of the Government of India instructions to the facts and circumstances of the case. We have duly considered the pleadings available on record as well as the pleas raised before us. Admittedly, as noticed hereinabove, the decision to con duct the de novo proceeding was on the basis of the memorandum of charge dated 26.9.1997 . The concluding lines of the operative portion of the judgment and order dated 27.2.2007 need be extracted hereinbelow at this stage for ready re ference :- Therefore, we have no hesitation in setting aside the order dated 22 .4.2004 and the Appellate Order dated 13.10.2004 for the reasons stated above an d we do so accordingly and liberty is given to the respondents to proceed afresh De novo ,if the respondents so desire. A plain reading of the excerpt as above makes it abundantly clear that followin g the invalidation of the orders of penalty passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority, the respondents therein had been left at li berty to proceed with afresh De novo if so desired . The learned Tribunal thus did not indicate the stage on and from which the proceedings ought to be furthe red. Instead, in our view, it was clearly intended that a fresh/de novo enquiry ought to be initiated against the petitioner by issuing another memorandum of ch arge, if so advised. The word de novo as defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Edition co nnotes anew . Therefore, there is no semblance of doubt that in absence of any indication to the contrar y in the direction as quoted hereinabove, the learned Tribunal had intended tha t a fresh inquiry to be initiated against the petitioner by the respondents, if so desired by them. The Government of India instructions relied upon by the petitioner and noticed by the learned Tribunal is extracted hereinbelow as well :- Effect to de novo proceedings:- When, on appeal, the Appellate Authori ty sets aside the punishment orders and remits the case for de novo trial, the o riginal proceedings containing the charge-sheet are to be deemed as quashed unle ss the stage from which the re-trial should be conducted is specified in the ord ered. It would be open to the Disciplinary Authority to frame any other charge i n addition to or in substitution of the original charge sheet subject to the con dition that it is based on facts of the case as initially disclosed for taking d epartmental action against the Government servant. The view expressed by us hereinabove is clearly reinforced thereby. The Tribunal had allowed the disciplinary authority to conduct the departmental enquiry afr esh/de novo without specifying the stage on and from which the same ought to be proceeded with. We have no manner of doubt that the enquiry furthered against the petitioner on the basis of the memorandum of charge dated 26.9.97 is oppos ed to the letter and sprit of the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 27.2.2007 and further in transgression of the Government of India instru ctions as above. On this short point, the impugned judgment and order can not be sustained. It is thus interfered with. The petition stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No costs.