- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner has approached this Court against the second show cause notice dated 28.7.2014 (Annexure-7) alleging that they are in teeth of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Punjab National Bank and Others v. Kunj Behari Misra, 1998 7 SCC 84 and also the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in his own case in W.P.S. No. 1221 of 2013. He has therefore prayed that the impugned show cause notice be not given effect to.
(2.) The brief facts of the instant case are that earlier petitioner approached this Court in relation to the same departmental inquiry when after submission of the inquiry report by the Inquiry Officer dated 29.6.2012, finding the charges not proved against him, a fresh inquiry was ordered on 6.10.2012 appointing a new Inquiry Officer. The challenge to the initiation of fresh inquiry in W.P.S. No. 1221 of 2013 was allowed by the learned Single Bench of this Court and the order directing fresh inquiry dated 6.10.2012 was quashed vide judgment dated 17.1.2014 (Annexure-6). However, it was left open to the respondents to pass a fresh order in the matter in accordance with law. Thereafter, the respondents have issued notice in the nature of second show cause, which is being challenged by the petitioner on the ground that it in fact contained the findings against the petitioner on the aforesaid charges without actually giving opportunity to the petitioner to represent on the grounds of difference by the Disciplinary Authority on the inquiry report. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that in fact this is no opportunity to the petitioner to represent against the reasons for differing from the opinion of the Inquiry Officer as the Disciplinary Authority has asked him to show cause as to why major punishment be not imposed against him. The impugned show cause notice also does not give him an opportunity of hearing as contemplated in the judgment rendered in the case of Punjab National Bank and Others v. Kunj Behari Misra . The Disciplinary Authority in fact has not differed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer rather reiterated the charges itself. Therefore, the impugned notice does not fulfill the requirement of second show cause and it should be quashed.
(3.) The respondent-State has filed their-counter affidavit and taken a stand that after recommendation was made by the C.B.I., the department chose to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner after reviewing of the C.B.I.'s report. However, the Inquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner of the charges and thereafter the Disciplinary Authority being not satisfied with the Inquiry Officer's report intended to take further action. According to the respondents, initiation of a fresh inquiry having been quashed by this Court, the impugned show cause has been issued on 28.7.2014 in accordance with the provisions of the conduct of departmental proceeding, wherein the reasons for disagreement has been clearly mentioned. Petitioner was also reminded through notice on 23.2.2015 to respond.;