- (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner has approached this Court against the order dated 7-3-1990 passed by opposite party No. 2 by which the enquiry proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. This Court on 1-4-1994 passed an interim order staying the further proceedings in the matter. The contention of the petitioner is that once the departmental enquiry has been concluded and the employee has been exonerated therefore, on the same facts, a fresh enquiry could not be in itiated. He further submits that three en quiries were conducted aquarist the petitioner by the two successive District Magistrates but nothing was found against the petitioner and as such another enquiry on the same facts is unwarranted. Learned Standing Counsel sub mits that while the petitioner was posted at Azamgarh as District Supply Officer, there was serious corruption charges against the petitioner and accordingly the proposed action has been taken against the petitioner. He further submits that the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies had appointed Regional Food Controller as the Enquiry Officer and the said officer could not finalise the matter as the record relating to the enquiry was in the posses sion of S. R, Economic Wing, Varanasi. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that since the departmental proceedings lying against the petitioner, were dropped, the petitioner was allowed to cross the ef ficiency bar by the order dated 15th July, 1989 and thereafter the services of the petitioner were regularised as District Supply Officer on 7-6-1993. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner at tained the age of superannuation on 30th June, 1997.
(3.) WE have perused the material on record. There was no dispute that the enquiry against the petitioner was made by the two officers and the petitioner was exonerated and nothing was found against the petitioner as is evident from the letter dated 8th April, 1990, a ropy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. 14 to that writ petition. In view of the aforesaid facts, there was no justification for initiating a fresh enquiry against the petitioner by order dated 7-5-1990 when admittedly the petitioner was allowed to cross the ef ficiency bar and he w is regularised as Dis trict Supply Officer o 17-6-1993.;