The main legal point established is that conducting a denovo enquiry solely due to the Disciplinary Authority's disagreement with the Enquiry Officer's findings is impermissible. Additionally, the prejudicial impact of protracted disciplinary proceedings on the employee and the need for adherence to timelines stipulated in official memoranda were emphasized.

ORDER :

The petitioner in this writ petition has called in question the order dated 27.06.2018, by which a denovo enquiry is directed to be initiated against the petitioner by appointment of a new Enquiry Officer on the same charge sheet that was issued earlier.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of present petition are that, the petitioner was appointed as a First Division Assistant in respondent No.2 – Mysore Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘Authority’ for short) in the year 1996 and when the petitioner was functioning as a First Division Assistant, owing to certain omissions and commissions, by an official memorandum dated 09.12.2003, the Disciplinary Authority placed the petitioner along with others on suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. It transpires that in the year 2005, after about two years, the order of suspension was revoked and petitioner was reinstated into services, after which, a charge sheet came to be issued against the petitioner on 06.04.2005. Four years after the issuance of charge sheet, the second respondent on 21.04.2009 appointed the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer directing enquiry proceedings to be held in terms of the charge sheet dated 06.04.2005 and to be completed within three months.

3. The Enquiry Officer commenced the enquiry proceedings on 04.07.2009. After about 9 years when the Enquiry Officer encountered no cooperation from the hands of the Authority by either producing any document or witness in furtherance of the charge sheet, closed the enquiry and held the petitioner not guilty of the allegations and submitted a report on 03.03.2018 holding the petitioner not guilty of the allegations.

4. On receipt of the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority -the Commissioner of Mysore Urban Development Authority again issued an order on 27.06.2018 directing a denovo enquiry to be conducted against the petitioner and others on the very same charge sheet that was issued on 06.04.2005, 13 years after the issuance of the charge sheet, pursuant to which, the enquiry proceedings are now conducted. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 informs this Court that the enquiry proceedings are concluded and the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report on 28.10.2020. It is the order dated 27.06.2018 by which the Disciplinary Authority directed for initiation of a denovo enquiry against the petitioner that is called in question in the writ petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel, Sri.Murugesh H.M., appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate, Smt. M.C. Nagashree, appearing for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel, Sri. T.P. Vivekananda, appearing for respondent No.2.

6. Learned counsel, Sri. Murugesh would submit that the charge sheet though was issued on 06.04.2005, the enquiry commenced only on 04.07.2009, after about 4 years of issuance of charge sheet. The proceedings went on upto 03.03.2018 for thirteen years at the Enquiry Officer finding that the second respondent has not produced any document to prove the allegations levelled against the petitioner and others for nine long years, closed the enquiry and held the petitioner not guilty of the allegations, a denovo enquiry on the same set of facts by a different Enquiry Officer is without authority of law. On the ground that the disciplinary proceedings are pending none of the terminal benefits that the petitioner is entitled to is settled despite the petitioner retiring on attaining the age of superannuation during the pendency of the said enquiry proceedings on 31.01.2012.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel, Sri.T.P. Vivekananda appearing for the second respondent would submit that pursuant to the denovo enquiry, the petitioner has participated in the enquiry proceedings and the enquiry Officer has submitted his report on 28.10.2020 and the Court, at this stage, should not interfere with the proceedings as it is premature, no order is pas