G.R.MAJITHIA, S.K.JAIN JJ. - (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order of the Assistant Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Rail Coach Factory, Kapurthala, dated November 17, 1992, in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) AN enquiry was ordered against the petitioner for certain acts of omission and. commission. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report. Since the report was found defective, it was no accepted and a fresh enquiry was ordered. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Assistant Security Commissioner could not order a fresh enquiry and in support of his submission he relied upon Rule 154. 4 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (for short, the Rules ). The same reads thus : "154. Action on the Inquiry Report. (4) The disciplinary authority, if it is not itself the Inquiry Officer, may for reasons to be recorded, remit the case to the Inquiry Officer for further inquiry and report. The Inquiry Officer shall thereupon proceed to hold further inquiry according to the provisions of Rule 153 and submit to the disciplinary authority the complete records of such inquiry along with his report. " There is substance in the submission made. If the disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the report of the Inquiry Officer, it could remit the case for further inquiry but could not order fresh inquiry.
(3.) FOR the reasons stated above, the order of the Assistant Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Rail Coach Factory, Kapurthala dated November 17, 1992, is quashed. However, he is permitted to proceed further in accordance with the provisions of Rule 154. 4 of the Rules. He could remit the case to the Inquiry Officer for further inquiry and report but could not order fresh inquiry into the matter. If he was satisfied with the inquiry report submitted earlier, he could take appropriate action pursuant thereto.;