Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is in second round of litigation. First writ petition was filed at the stage when he was served with the charge -sheet. The writ petition was disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider the issue in reference of the action taken in respect of other officers having allegation of similar nature. Respondents considered the matter in the light of the direction of this Court and rejected the representation vide impugned order dated 15th April, 2011. The present petition was filed at that stage.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the representation has been rejected precisely on the ground of monetary loss, whereas, the charge -sheet does not contain allegation of monetary loss. The respondents even failed to consider that counter parts of petitioner had passed similar orders but no disciplinary action was taken against them or if it was taken then, dropped. The petitioner was discriminated by the respondents. It was apart from the fact that the orders passed by the petitioner was while exercising quasi -judicial duties. The petitioner is having protection against any order passed while exercising quasi -judicial duties. The respondents ignored the aforesaid. The impugned order dated 15th April, 2011, thus, deserves to be set aside. It further states that after issuance of notice of this petition, the inquiry report was submitted on 8th November, 2011 without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In view of above, even inquiry report deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that pursuant to the direction in the first writ petition, the representation of the petitioner was considered and decided by a speaking order. The default of the petitioner pointed out for each of the incidence is forming part of charge -sheet. In view of above, interference may not be caused in the impugned order. It is more so when an inquiry report has been submitted to the disciplinary authority on 8th November, 2011, when the petitioner did not participated in the inquiry proceedings, despite notice. The said inquiry report is not under challenge. The writ petition, thus, be referred infructuous, in view of subsequent developments. The petitioner would be having an opportunity to represent his case before the disciplinary authority, if he is so aggrieved by the inquiry report.
(3.) I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.;