S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by order dated 06.10.2012 appointing an inquiry officer for conducting a fresh inquiry into the allegations contained in charge -memo dated 17.02.2012, the petitioner has approached this Court. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.
(2.) AN inquiry was conducted and inquiry report dated 29.06.2012 was submitted finding the charges levelled against the petitioner, not proved. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 06.10.2012 another inquiry officer has been appointed for conducting a fresh inquiry into the allegations contained in charge -memo dated 17.02.2012. A counter -affidavit has been filed stating as under: 6. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the instant writ application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order contained in memo no. 7222(s) dated 06.10.2012 of the Road Construction Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder the enquiry report of the departmental proceeding instituted against the petitioner has been rejected and another conducting officer and presenting officer have been appointed for fresh enquiry of the aforesaid departmental proceeding instituted vide resolution contacted in memo no. 1202 (S) dated 17.02.2012 and further for direction upon the respondents not to proceed with the departmental proceeding under the fresh conducting officer. 7. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the petitioner is an Assistant Engineer under the administrative control of the Road Construction Department, Jharkhand. The petitioner was earlier posted as Assistant Engineer is National Highway Division, Dhanbad. An First Information Report has been lodged by the C.B.I., pertaining to the bitumen scam in N.H. Division, Dhanbad under case no. RC 10(A)/2010 (R) in pursuant to direction of the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court given in a PIL and it relates to the period when the petitioner was posted there. Although the petitioner has not been made a named accused in the above criminal case, but the C.B.I. has recommended a regular departmental proceeding for major punishment against him in its report related with the above criminal case. After review of the above C.B.I.'s report the Government has decided to initiate a departmental proceeding against the petitioner, which has been instituted vide resolution contained in memo no. 1202(SO dated 17.02.2012, whereby Mr. N.K. Mishra, IAS. The Civil Defence Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi and the Executive Engineer, N.H. Division, Dhanbad were appointed as conducting officer and Presenting officer respectively. 8. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the Conducting Officer of the aforesaid Departmental Proceeding. Mr. N.K. Mishra has completed the departmental proceeding and submitted his enquiry report to this department. All the four charges framed against the petitioner for the above departmental proceeding have not been reported to be proved in the enquiry report of the Conducting Officer, Mr. N.K. Mishra. 9. That it is humbly stated ans submitted that the C.B.I. has reported the clear involvement of the petitioner in the process of payment to the concerned contractor of the road construction on the basis of fake bitumen invoices submitted by the (contractor), therefore the enquiry report of the Conducting Officer, Mr. N.K. Mishra was not found reliable/agreeable in its review. Thus in the light of above review the Government has decided to change the above Conducting Officer and Presenting Officer of the aforesaid departmental proceeding for fresh further enquiry and that has been notified by the order contained in memo no. 7222 (S) dated 06.10.2012 of the Road Construction Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi. Since the disciplinary authority is not intended to take any further action on the basis of the above enquiry report of the conducting officer Mr. N.K. Mishra, therefore it has not been found necessary to convey the reason of disagreement to the charged Government Servant.
(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that once the inquiry officer found the charges against the petitioner not proved, it was open to the respondent -authority to issue show -cause notice to the petitioner indicating the ground on which the disciplinary authority decided to disagree with the findings recorded in the departmental proceeding however, it was not open to the respondents to conduct a fresh inquiry into the allegations contained in charge -memo dated 17.02.2012. It was open to the disciplinary authority to pass order of punishment after complying with the requirements of the principle of natural justice however, it was not open to the respondent -authority to conduct a fresh inquiry into the matter. Relying on the decision in "K.R. Deb v. the Collector of Central Excise, Shillong", reported in : (1971) 2 SCC 102 and "Nand Kumar Verma v. State of Jharkhand and Others", reported in : (2012) 3 SCC 580, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case the impugned order dated 06.10.2012 is liable to be quashed.;