ORDER

1. LEAVE GRANTED.

2. THE SOLE QUESTION WHICH ARISES IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER A FRESH ENQUIRY PROCEEDING COULD BE INITIATED AGAINST THE RESPONDENT EMPLOYEE. THE EMPLOYEE HAD BEEN INITIALLY DEMOTED ON THE BASIS OF PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BY AN ORDER DATED 4-2-1989. THAT ORDER OF DEMOTION WAS PASSED AFTER THE FIRST ENQUIRY OFFICERS REPORT HAD BEEN SET ASIDE AND A FRESH ENQUIRY HAD BEEN ORDERED BY THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY. THE RESPONDENT CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF DEMOTION IN A SUIT WHICH WAS DECREED IN HIS FAVOUR. THE FIRST APPEAL AND SECOND APPEAL AND THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION WERE ALL DISMISSED. THE GROUND ON WHICH THE RESPONDENT PROCEEDED BEFORE ALL THE FORA WAS THAT THE PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN INITIATED BY AN AUTHORITY INCOMPETENT TO DO SO. THE FIRST AND SECOND APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL FROM THE DECREE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS NO PROVISION IN THE RULES TO ORDER A FRESH ENQUIRY AND THAT ONCE AN ENQUIRY HAD BEEN HELD, A FRESH ENQUIRY COULD NOT BE ORDERED MERELY BECAUSE THE ENQUIRY REPORT WAS NOT LIKED BY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY. THIS FINDING WAS IN ADDITION TO THE FINDING THAT THE ORDER OF DEMOTION WAS PASSED BY AN INCOMPETENT OFFICER. WHEN THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION WAS DISPOSED OF BY THIS COURT, WE LEFT THE QUESTION OF LAW OPEN. BE THAT AS IT MAY, THE FIRST ROUND ENDED WITH THE DISMISSAL OF THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION ON 5-1-2001.

3. ON 12-8-2002 FRESH ENQUIRY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED BY THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AGAINST THE RESPONDENT. THIS ORDER WAS CHALLENGED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. THE WRIT PETITION WAS ALLOWED ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN THE FIRST ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS HAD CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT A FRESH ENQUIRY COULD NOT BE HELD.

4. THE HIGH COURT HAS MISDIRECTED ITSELF. THE FRESH ENQUIRY REFERRED TO BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS WELL AS BY THE HIGH COURT IN THE FIRST ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS RELATED TO A FRESH ENQUIRY TO BE HELD BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER. IT DID NOT PERTAIN TO A FRESH PROCEEDING BEING INITIATED ALTOGETHER BY A COMPETENT AUTHORITY. SINCE THE EARLIER PROCEEDING WAS REALLY DISMISSED ON THE BASIS OF A TECHNICALITY, IT WAS OPEN TO THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO REINITIATE THE SAME. THIS HAS BEEN SO HELD BY A CONSTITUTION BENCH OF THIS COURT IN DEVENDRA PRATAP NARAIN RAI SHARMA V. STATE OF U.P.1 IN AIR PARAS 7 AND 8. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT. THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE MAY BE CARRIED ON FROM THE STAGE AT WHICH IT WAS STOPPED.

5. THERE SHALL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.