M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) THIS appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 28.7.1992 passed in CW.J.C. No. 1906 of 1991 (R) whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and refused to interfere with the order of dismissal passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih and affirmed by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh.
(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: The petitioner -appellant was a Panchayet Sevak and during the relevant time, i.e. 1978 - 79, he was posted at Udnabad panchayat in Giridih Block. In 1975, he was put under suspension and a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him on the charges of misconduct. The then Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, was appointed Enquiry Officer who, after completion of enquiry, submitted inquiry report. Appellant's case is that the Enquiry Officer, in his inquiry report, came to the conclusion that the charges have not been proved. Instead of passing final order, the matter was kept in abeyance for a long time and in 1981, the petitioner was served with fresh memo of charge dated 19.3.1981, issued by the Deputy Commissioner whereby second inquiry was entrusted for the same charges to another Deputy Collector, Giridih. The Enquiry Officer so appointed, submitted his inquiry report dated 4.5.1982. The Deputy Commissioner being the Disciplinary Authority, on the basis of the said report, passed the order dated 1.6.1982 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and awarded punishment of compulsory retirement from the date of the suspension. The Deputy Commissioner also directed for recovery of the entire subsistence allowance from the petitioner -appellant. The appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner challenging the initiation of the second inquiry and the order of punishment. The Commissioner remanded the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority on the ground that no show cause notice was issued to the appellant before inflicting punishment. After the matter was remanded back by the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner issued show cause notice dated 20.2.1984 asking him to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The appellant challenged the very initiation of second disciplinary proceeding and denied all the charges leveled against him. After perusal of the show cause, the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appellant from service by order 7.6.1984. The said decision was affirmed by the Commissioner in appeal filed by the appellant.
(3.) THE appellant challenged aforesaid order of dismissal passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner by filing C.W.J.C. No. 1251 of 1985 (R) which was disposed of on 17.10.1999. This Court quahsed the order of punishment and directed the Commissioner to dispose of the appeal on merit. Consequent thereupon, the Commissioner passed order dismissing the appeal and affirming the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The appellant then challenged the order of dismissal by filing C.W.J.C. No. 1906 of 1991 (R) on the ground, inter alia, that initiation of second disciplinary proceeding and service of fresh memo of charge is illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. The respondent -Department filed counter affidavit stating, inter alia, that in the earlier departmental proceedings, after submission of inquiry report by the Enquiry Officer and before passing order by the Disciplinary Authority, the file became traceless. It was under that circumstance, the second inquiry had to be conducted and in this way, the order of dismissal was passed.;