- (1.) Heard Sri J. P. Goyal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rakesh Nigam for the State.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the restart of the enquiry proceedings from the stage of submission of the enquiry report to the disciplinary authority/appointing authority on the ground that the punishment of censure entry, awarded after full fledged enquiry, has already been set aside by the Tribunal and, therefore, the State has no authority to reinitiate the proceedings from any stage.
(3.) In nut shell the facts are that the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in respect of certain charges, wherein the enquiry officer exonerated the petitioner but the disciplinary authority, without affording opportunity to the petitioner to express his views on the proposed difference of opinion as against the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, passed the punishment order. The petitioner feeling aggrieved approached the Public Services Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its order dated 4.12.05 set aside the order of punishment after holding that since the enquiry officer has exonerated the petitioner of all the charges, therefore, the disciplinary authority could not have inflicted the punishment, without affording opportunity, as required under law.;