A.S.Bhate - (1.) The petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the service of the respondent-Board. He was placed under suspension on the ground that he demanded from Khaja Bahadur Hussain an amount of Rs. 1,500.00 as illegal gratification for shifting the service line, and it was further said that the petitioner had accepted the first instalment of Rs. 1,000.00 from the said complainant. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner in the complaint by Khaja Bahadur Hussain. One Sri Suryanarayana, Divisional Engineer of the respondent-Board was appointed as Enquiry Officer. He submitted his report on 23.5.1990. It is contended that in the said report, conclusions favourable to the petitioner were reached. After the report was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority, the Disciplinary Authority instead of accepting the report and taking further steps on the report according to the Rules, took an extraordinary step by appointing another Enquiry Officer for holding a de novo enquiry. The suspension of the petitioner continued. M. A. Rahman, Superintending Engineer, was appointed as the second Enquiry Officer on 24.9.1990. A fresh charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner by the second Enquiry Officer. Petitioner submitted his explanation to the said charge-sheet. As M. A. Rahman was transferred in the meantime, another officer by name D. V. Subba Rao was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry by order dated 26.11.1990. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.11.1990, and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.6.1991 to the Disciplinary Authority i.e., the Secretary, Vidyut Soudha. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the respondent proposing to impose punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner in answer to the said show-cause notice submitted his reply. The respondent considered the reply and passed a final order on 28.9.1991 dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Chairman of the respondent-Board. The Chairman considered the appeal and partly allowed it by order dated 28.10.1991. By the said order, though the petitioner was found guilty of the charge framed against him, the dismissal of the petitioner from service was modified and was reduced to stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect, and the period of suspension was treated as 'dies non.'
(2.) The petitioner has challenged the said order dated 28.10.1991 by filing the present writ petition.
(3.) The respondent vide its counter admitted the factual statements made in the petition. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that it was not permissible for the respondent to hold successive enquiries against him. There is no power vested with the respondent-Board to ignore the result of the first enquiry and to start a de novo enquiry. Apart from lack of such power, there was no reason given in the instant case for appointing a fresh Enquiry Officer. Even on that ground, the second enquiry was vitiated and has resulted in harassment of the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for respondent-Board submits that it is open for the Disciplinary Authority to direct holding of further enquiry or fresh enquiry de novo if it found that irregularities were committed in conduct of enquiry by the Enquiry Officer. It is contended that the Enquiry Officer in the first enquiry conducted against the petitioner did not take into consideration the material which was available against the petitioner, and that resulted in deficiency in the first enquiry. It was therefore, permissible for the Disciplinary Authority to order a de novo enquiry to cure the deficiencies. Furthermore, it is contended that the petitioner had participated in the second enquiry, and it is not open for him to challenge the punishment which was given to him as a result of the second enquiry.;