RAJAN ROY, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) In the earlier writ petition of the petitioner i.e. Writ Petition No. 642(SS) of 2016 this Court had passed the following order on 14.01.2016:- "Heard. The petitioner herein challenges the order of his suspension from service dated 27.2.2015 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). According to the petitioner, no charge-sheet has been issued as yet. It is further stated that prolonged suspension is unjustified. On the other hand, Sri Prakash Sigh, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties submits that the charge-sheet shall be issued within one week and the proceedings shall be completed within next three months. In these circumstances, the court declines to interfere with the suspension order at this stage subject to the condition that the charge-sheet shall be issued to the petitioner within ten days and the disciplinary proceedings shall be completed within next three months. The petitioner shall cooperate with the same. It is further provided that if the charge-sheet is not issued within ten days, then the suspension order shall stand revoked and the petitioner shall be reinstated in service and paid salary. However, it shall be open for the opposite parties to take such work as they deem appropriate or not to take work. With the above observations/directions this writ petition is disposed of."
(3.) In pursuance thereto the charge sheet was provided to the petitioner within 10 days, therefore, he continued under suspension. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 19.02.2016 wherein he was exonerated. The Disciplinary Authority vide his order dated 14.03.2016 (wrongly referred as 14.03.2014) disagreed with the inquiry report and ordered a fresh inquiry. He appointed another Inquiry Officer for this purpose.;