1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

2. The petitioner was proceeded with departmentally when memo of charges were served in 1984 on allegations with regard to short-supply in purchase of brick tiles when full payment was released, acceptance of inferior quality valves and illegal issuance of approximately six hundred bags of cement from the store. Final order of punishment was passed affirmed by the appellate authority on 26.8.1995.

3. The petitioner superannuated from service on 31.10.1990.

4. He had questioned his orders of punishment of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect, censure, stoppage of promotion for five years, recovery of the amount in question, nothing beyond subsistence allowance would be payable in CWJC No. 9070 of 1997

5. It was contended that the first departmental enquiry was based on a preliminary enquiry which formed the basis of memo of charge. This Court noticed the submission that the first departmental enquiry was based on preliminary enquiry, which was ex parte in nature, copy whereof was not given. The findings of the Inquiry Officer were based on preliminary enquiry report. During departmental proceedings, no personal hearing was given; prosecution witnesses were examined behind his back and, therefore, he was not made aware of the date of the departmental proceedings. Valuable right to cross-examine the witness was, thus, denied. Before imposition of punishment, no copy of the enquiry report was given. In the second departmental proceeding also personal hearing was denied, prosecution witnesses examined behind the back denying cross- examination and likewise no copy of the enquiry report given with the show cause notice. The appellate order was non-speaking and cryptic.

6. This Court noticed the dispute with regard to non-supply of preliminary enquiry report and on which findings of the Inquiry Officer was based. Serious allegations of procedural irregularities vitiated the departmental enquiry were also noticed apart from non-supply of the enquiry report and absence of second show cause notice in addition to the appellate order being cryptic and non-speaking.

7. The counter affidavit had only taken the stand that the preliminary enquiry report was made available and other objections of procedural irregularities are being raised before this court when no such objection was taken before the Inquiry Officer.

8. This court by its judgment and order dated 29.11.2007 set aside the order of punishment dated 25.8.1985/ 30.1.1990 and appellate order dated 26.8.1996 and remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority to decide the matter afresh in light of the nature of the controversy and materials noticed in the order.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even fresh orders by the disciplinary authority in both the proceedings dated 19.11.2008 and 21.11.2008 suffers from the same infirmities as noticed by this Court earlier and are non-speaking in nature.

10. Learned counsel for the State contended that the orders show that the second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner alongwith a copy of the enquiry report and only thereafter the fresh orders have been passed. Therefore, there has been full compliance with the procedures and the impugned orders warrant no interference. No detail reasons were required when the appellate authority was not inclined to take any different view from that taken earlier.

11. This Court in CWJC No. 9070 of 1997 after consideration of the case of the petitioner and that of the Respondents in their counter affidavit was prima facie satisfied of the serious procedural lapses in conduct of the departmental proceedings and non-supply of the second show cause notice alongwith enquiry report was also one of the lapses but not the only lapse. For that reason, the matter was refunded to the disciplinary authority to re-determine, if other procedural lapses with regard to the non-supply of the preliminary enquiry re