SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR,J. - (1.) Aggrieved of Resolution dated 24.03.2017 by which the disciplinary authority disagreed with the enquiry report dated 08.12.2016 and an enquiring officer has been appointed for conducting the departmental proceeding, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(2.) The petitioner, who was appointed as Junior Engineer on 07.10.1987, was holding the post of Assistant Engineer at the relevant time and, he was given additional charge of Executive Engineer also. On an allegation that he connived with the contractors, a show cause notice was issued to him on 15.05.2015. A departmental proceeding was initiated vide Resolution dated 22.04.2016, in which an enquiry report was submitted on 08.12.2016. There were four charges framed against the petitioner. None of the charges was found proved by the enquiring officer. Disagreeing with the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority has decided to appoint another enquiring officer for conducting the departmental enquiry, which is a fresh enquiry.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a fresh enquiry on the ground disclosed in Resolution dated 24.03.2017 is not permissible. All that should have been done in the instant case was to grant an opportunity to the delinquent officer to respond to the note of disagreement on the findings recorded by the enquiring officer, and proceed in the matter under Rule 18(3), but the disciplinary authority could not have initiated a fresh enquiry by appointing another enquiring officer.;