ORDER :

Maheshan Nagaprasanna, J.

1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition calling in question the order dated 25.06.2018, passed by the fourth respondent directing conduct of a de novo enquiry on the same charge sheet by a different Enquiry Officer.

2. Filtering out unnecessary details, the facts that are germane for consideration in the writ petition are as follows:

The first petitioner was appointed on 06.06.2006, as a Professor and Head of the Department in Biochemistry in the third respondent - Mandya Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as 'the Institute' for short). The second petitioner was appointed as a Director and discharged his duties in the Institute from 02.07.2012 to 20.03.2013 and is presently working as Professor and Head of the Department in the Department of Anaesthesia, Koppal Institute of Medical Sciences, Koppal. The third petitioner was also appointed as a Director of the Institute has worked from 25.05.2011 upto 02.07.2012 and now has retired on attaining the age of superannuation. The fourth petitioner was appointed as Medical Superintendent in the Institute on 28.06.2012 and functioned as such upto 21.11.2015 and presently working in the Institute as Professor and Head of the Department in the Department of General Medicine of the said Institute.

3. It is said that during the years 2012-2015, the Institute took a decision to purchase medicines and various other medical supplies. The Finance Committee of the Institute approved 39 subjects of the kind on 19.06.2014. The Purchase Committee of the Institute took several decisions to purchase medicines by way of tender in terms of its resolution dated 11.07.2014. Pursuant to all the aforesaid proceedings, the Governing Council of the Institute by a resolution dated 22.08.2014, approved the decision of the Finance Committee.

4. After all the aforesaid proceedings, a complaint was lodged by one Venkatesh before the first respondent - Government against the petitioners alleging that they were responsible for several irregularities. It is said that the first respondent examined the file and closed the enquiry in the year 2015. The complainant did not stop at that, he again registered a complaint before the second respondent-Governing Council of the Institute to hold an enquiry against the petitioners during the respective period of their functioning in their respective posts in the Institute.

5. In furtherance of the said complaint, the fourth respondent - the Vice Chairman and Ex-Officio Additional Chief Secretary of the Government issued a charge sheet against all the petitioners on 29.07.2015. On 16.11.2015, it appears that the matter was placed before the Governing Council who resolved to appoint a retired District Judge as an Enquiry Officer to hold enquiry against the petitioners in terms of the charge sheet dated 29.07.2015. The Institute examined as many as 20 witnesses and marked about 34 documents against the petitioners and on submission of the defence statements, the enquiry was concluded. On consideration of the brief of the Presenting Officer and the defence statements of the petitioners, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges levelled against the petitioners as not proved. Notwithstanding the clear findings of the Enquiry Officer, the first respondent - Government directed the same Enquiry Officer on 08.01.2018, to hold further enquiry on the basis of a Vigilance Report. The Enquiry Officer after examining the Vigilance Report, submitted that no further enquiry can be held as the Enquiry Officer has conducted a full fledged enquiry. The fourth respondent then appointed a new Enquiry Officer to conduct a de novo enquiry against the petitioners on the same charges by his order dated 25.06.2018. It is this order that is called in question by the petitioners in the writ petition.

6. Heard Sri. M.S. Bhagwat, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri. Srinivasa Gouda, learned Additional Government Advocate for the first respondent a