The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.03.2016, passed by the Managing Director, Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Limited (“KS & DL", for short), whereby the Managing Director has discarded the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, and appointed a fresh Enquiry Officer, and has directed a fresh enquiry against the petitioner.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner had completed his B.Sc. and M.Sc. in Chemistry. The petitioner was eligible to be appointed on the post of Junior Officer in the respondent-Company. On 16.10.2012, the respondent-Company issued an advertisement inviting applications for filling up the backlog vacancies. Since the petitioner was eligible for the said post, he applied for the same. By order dated 26.05.2014, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Junior Officer. However, subsequently, the respondent-Company was informed by the Superintendent of Police, Mandya, that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case under Section 408 IPC, and was facing a trial for the same. Therefore, on 19.12.2014, the respondent issued a notice to the petitioner requiring him to show-cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for having submitted a false statement that there were no criminal cases pending against him at the time he had sought appointment with the Company. Immediately on 08.01.2015, the petitioner submitted his reply, wherein he claimed that since he has not been convicted by any Court of Law, and since the column in the application had merely sought information with regard to conviction, and not with regard to pendency of criminal trial, he has truthfully stated that he has not been convicted. However, after receiving the petitioner’s reply, by order dated 21.01.2015, the petitioner was discharged from the post of Junior Officer inter-alia on the ground that he has suppressed relevant facts from the Company.

3. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the discharge order dated 21.01.2015, he filed a writ petition before this Court, namely W.P.No.3517/. By order dated 23.11.2015, this Court set aside the discharge order, but did not directed that the petitioner be reinstated. For, at the relevant time, the petitioner was merely appointed on probation, and had not completed his probationary period. But, this Court did direct the respondent to complete the enquiry proceedings within a period of six weeks.

4. Consequently, on 08.01.2016, the respondent issued a charge memo to the petitioner. After completing the enquiry, on 06.02.2016, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report, wherein he exonerated the petitioner of the charges leveled against him. But, instead of acting on the report of the Enquiry Officer, by letter dated 25.03.2016, the Managing Director has informed the petitioner that the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer is discarded and Mr. B. M. Angadi, a retired District and Sessions Judge, has been appointed as the Enquiry Officer for holding a fresh enquiry. Hence, this petition before this Court.

5. Mr. Sathish, the learned counsel for petitioner has raised the following contentions before this court:

Firstly, once the petitioner has been exonerated by the Enquiry Officer, the Managing Director is not justified in directing that fresh enquiry should be held against the petitioner. Since the Enquiry Officer had exonerated the petitioner, the only course left for the Disciplinary Authority was to agree or to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, and to pass necessary orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Secondly, even if the respondent claim that they have received certain documents from the petitioner’s previous employer, a fresh charge needs to be framed. At this juncture, the Enquiry Officer could not have been appointed without framing fresh charges. Therefore, the letter dated 25.03.2016 is legally unsustainable.

6. On the other hand, Mr. M.R.C. Ravi, the learned counsel for re