Re-initiation of a disciplinary enquiry post-exoneration contradicts principles of natural justice unless justified by serious procedural defects.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

1. Leave to delete Respondent No.4, being an Enquiry Officer. Deletion be carried out forthwith.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the Petition finally with the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.

3. The case before us falls in a narrow compass. The Petitioner contends as follows :

(a) The Petitioner was suspended by the Corporation vide order dated 9^th May, 2024 pending disciplinary action;

(b) He was issued with a chargesheet on 5^th September, 2024;

(c) An Enquiry Officer was appointed on 27^th November, 2024;

(d) The Departmental Enquiry commenced on 10^th December, 2024 and concluded on 11^th February, 2025;

(e) The Petitioner submitted his defence statement on 11^th February, 2025;

(f) On 11^th February, 2025 (the same day), the Enquiry Officer tendered his report (15 pages), which is placed on record. The Petitioner was exonerated of all the charges and was declared innocent;

(g) On 14^th May, 2025, the Petitioner was informed that a new Enquiry Officer has been appointed, despite the Petitioner having been exonerated of the charges leveled against him, with the conclusion that none of the allegations were proved.

4. The Corporation has vehemently defended its action of appointing a new Enquiry Officer and initiating a fresh enquiry. Reliance is placed on clause 7.3 under Chapter VII of the Divisional Enquiry Manual, which reads as under :

5. It is vehemently submitted that if the Employer notices that the enquiry was conducted in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, a fresh enquiry can be ordered in the light of clause 7.3, as quoted above.

6. The Petitioner places reliance upon a practically identical case wherein this Court delivered a judgment on 2^nd March, 2020 in Writ Petition No.8752 of 2017 (Vasant Yashvant Thorat v/s Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran and Ors.), in which, the same clause 7.3 was relied upon. This Court concluded in paragraph nos.7 to 13, as under :

“7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that after full-fledged enquiry, where witnesses were examined the Petitioner has been exonerated and merely because the Enquiry Officer’s report is in favour of the Petitioner, the enquiry cannot be re-started. Learned Counsel for the Respondents relied upon the Departmental Enquiry Manual clause 7.3 thereof. Learned Counsel submitted that the enquiry was conducted by non-technical person and after receiving the technical report, it has found power under Rule 7.3 to be exercised. The affidavit-in-reply is accordingly filed.

8. First, we note that the enquiry initiated in the year 2010 and which has been concluded by report dated 27 May 2011 was a detailed one. The enquiry went on from 27 October 2010, from the appointment of the Enquiry Officer till submission of the report in May 2011. The Respondents appointed perfunctory officer and also examined witnesses. After considering various aspects, including that of technical nature, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. The report is of 31 pages. On the face of it, it cannot be said that the report submitted was perfunctory.

9. The clause 7.3 on which reliance is placed by the Respondents reads thus :

10. Clause 7.3.1 is for restarting fresh enquiry if the enquiry is held in violation of the principles of natural justic