Manipur High Court
R.K Herojit Singh vs The Principal ... on 23 February, 2023
CHONGNUNKI Digitally signed by CHONGNUNKIM
GANGTE
M GANGTE Date: 2023.02.23 14:29:44 +05'30'
Item No. 21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 320 of 2021
R.K Herojit Singh ....Petitioner(s)
-Versus-
The Principal Secretary/Commissioner (Home) & 4 Ors
....Respondent(s)
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
23.02.2023
Heard Mr. S. Rajeetchandra, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and Mr. S. Niranjan, learned GA appearing for the
respondents.
[2] The simple case of the petitioner is that a Departmental
Enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and after the conclusion of
the said Departmental Enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report
to the Disciplinary Authority stating that charges against the petitioner
are not held prove. On receiving the said enquiry report, the
Disciplinary Authority issued the impugned order dated 01-03-2019 to
the effect that he was not satisfied with the finding of the Enquiry
Officer and accordingly he appointed a new Enquiry Officer for
conducting a fresh enquiry to the charges made against the petitioner.
[3] Relying on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Vijay Shankar Pandey Vs Union of India & Anr
reported in (2014) 10 SCC 589, it has been submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the Disciplinary Authority has no power
for ordering a re-enquiry against the petitioner only on the ground that
he was not satisfied with the findings submitted by the earlier Enquiry
Officer and accordingly, the learned counsel submitted that the
impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is
liable to be quashed and set aside. The relevant portion of the
judgment rendered in the case of "Vijay Shankar Pandey" (supra) is
reproduced herein below:-
"25. The Court in K.R. Deb held that:
"12 It seems to us that Rule 15, on the face
of it, really provides for one inquiry but it may be possible if
in a particular case there has been no proper enquiry
because some serious defect has crept into the inquiry or
some important witnesses were not available at the time of
the inquiry or for some other reason, the Disciplinary
Authority may ask the Inquiry Officer to record further
evidence. But there is no provision in Rule 15 for completely
setting aside previous inquiries on the ground that the report
of the Inquiring Officer or Officers does not appeal to the
Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority has
enough powers to reconsider the evidence itself and come
to its own conclusion under Rule 9.
13. In our view the rules do not contemplate
an action such as was taken by the Collector on February
13, 1962. It seems to us that the Collector, instead of taking
responsibility himself, was determined to get some officer to
report against the appellant. The procedure adopted was not
only not warranted by the rules but was harassing to the
appellant." (Emphasis supplied) and allowed the appeal of
K.R. Deb.
" 26. It can be seen from the above that the normal rule is
that there can be only one Enquiry. This Court has also
recognized the possibility of a further Enquiry in certain
circumstances enumerated therein. The decision however
makes it clear that the fact that the Report submitted by the
Enquiring Authority is not acceptable to the disciplinary
authority, is not a ground for completely setting aside the
enquiry report and ordering a second Enquiry."
[4] Despite giving ample opportunities to the respondents to
file their counter affidavit, the respondents have failed to file their
counter affidavit till today.
After hearing the submission of the learned counsel for
the petitioner and after perusal of the case laws cited by him, the
learned GA fairly submitted that the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of K.R Dev Vs Collector of Central Excise,
Shillong reported in (1971) 2 SCC 102 and in the case of Vijay
Shankar Pandey Vs Union of India & Anr reported in (2014) 10 SCC
589, are applicable in the present case and that any appropriate order
may be passed by this Court as deemed just and proper.
[5] I have heard the submission of the learned counsel
appearing for the parties at length and also examine carefully the
materials available on record.
[6] In the present case, the Departmental Enquiry was
conducted against the petitioner and after completion of the said
Departmental Enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report to the
effect that the charges made against the petitioner are not held prove.
On receiving the said enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority issued
the impugned order dated 01-03-2019 stating that he is not satisfied
with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and accordingly, the Disciplinary
Authority appointed another Enquiry Officer for holding a fresh enquiry
against the petitioner.
[7] In the case of Vijay Shankar Pandey (supra) it has been
categorically held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the Disciplinary
Authority being not satisfied with the enquiry report is not a ground for
completely setting aside the enquiry report and ordering a second
enquiry. In my considered view, the said principle of law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court squarely covers the issue raised in the present
case and this Court is satisfied that the impugned order dated 01-03-
2019 is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is liable to be
quashed and set aside.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed by
quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 01-03-2019.
Parties are to bear their own cost.
JUDGE
kim
