- (1.) HEARD .
(2.) THE petitioner, Shashi Bhushan Kumar, as well as one Arjun Ram were proceeded departmentally for certain charges. Arjun Ram was the Accountant whereas the petitioner Shashi Bhushan Kumar was the Assistant Accountant at Giridih Treasury. Both were separately proceeded departmentally and against both the charges were found to be not proved. Accordingly, recommendation was made to exonerate them. The disciplinary authority i.e. the respondent no. 2, the Deputy Commissioner, disagreed with the enquiry report, and ordered to hold fresh enquiry against the petitioner after changing the enquiry officer vide Annexure -6. Arjun Ram challenged the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in W.P.(S) No. 3059 of 2003 before this Court which was disposed of finally by order dated 11.11.2003 as contained in Annexure -9 to the rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner. The order passed in the case of Arjun Ram in W.P.(S) No. 3059 of 2003, is quoted hereinbelow: '' "Heard the parties. The petitioner is challenging the letter dated 6.6.2003 issued under the signature of the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih who while rejecting the enquiry directed for fresh enquiry to be conducted by another Enquiry Officer. It appears that before superannuation the petitioner was proceeded with a departmental enquiry and than continued even after retirement. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report who, according to the finding that charges were not proved, recommended for exonerating the petitioner from all the charges. The disciplinary authority instead of accepting or disagreeing with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and without giving second show - cause notice stating the reasons of disagreement, disapproved/ rejected the enquiry report and ordered for fresh enquiry. The said order of the Deputy Commissioner is totally against the law settled by the Supreme Court in the case of "K.R. Deb V/s. The Collector of Central Excise, Shillong", (A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1447) and Bhupinder Pal Singh V/s. The Director General of Civil Aviation and Ors. [(2003)(2) Supreme Today S.C. 493] the same cannot be sustained in law. The said order as contained in Annexure -5 is, therefore, quashed. However, it is made clear that the disciplinary authority may, if so advised, proceed from the stage of issuing second show -cause notice and conclude the departmental proceeding in accordance with law within a period of four months from today. In the meantime the respondents shall release entire subsistence allowances if not already paid and other dues in accordance with law."
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that since the case of the petitioner stands exactly on similar footing to that of the Arjun Ram, and therefore, the order passed against him as contained n Annexure -6 should also be quashed on the same line to that in the case of Arjun Ram.;