The main legal point established is the requirement for a reasoned and speaking order, proper grounds for initiating fresh proceedings, and compliance with procedural requirements in departmental enquiries.

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

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 23.10.2009 inflicting censure and stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect, to be entered in his service records.

3. The petitioner was proceeded with departmentally, a memo of charge dated 7.6.2004 was served upon him. Charge No. 2 related to irregularities in grant of Arms licences pointed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajgir in his Letter No. 335 (confidential) dated 12.7.2003 apart from charge nos. 1 and 3 on other issues. The petitioner was placed under suspension.

4. It is contended that the departmental enquiry ended in exoneration when the respondents fully enforced the same by paying him full salary for the period of suspension by an order dated 6.9.2005 with reference to his exoneration. On 5.10.2007 fresh departmental proceedings were initiated on the directions of the District Magistrate and a fresh enquiry officer appointed. Of the three fresh charges, charge nos. 1 and 2 were split-up charges arising from the same letter of the Sub- Divisional Officer, Rajgir dated 3.3.2005 (confidential) dated 12.7.2003 with regard to grant of the same 25 Arms licences. The order dated 5.10.2007 did not disclose any reasons for fresh departmental proceedings after exoneration. The petitioner filed his reply enclosing the earlier enquiry report of exoneration and objecting that no fresh departmental proceedings were maintainable. The order for fresh departmental proceedings dated 5.10.2007 was non-speaking in nature and did not even refer to any specific order of the District Magistrate. Second show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner. He reiterated his objections to a fresh proceeding on exonerated charges and also objected that the memo of charges were not accompanied by any documents and despite his request no evidence was made available to him in support of charges when the Enquiry Officer had proceeded to record a finding of guilt based only on the charges and the defence of the petitioner. Without compliance with procedures for regular departmental enquiry a finding of guilt was arrived and order of punishment has been passed. The petitioner during the course of the enquiry had asked for the enquiry report of exoneration which was neither supplied nor exhibited much less considered.

5. With regard to charge no. 1, the Enquiry Officer has recorded that the petitioner did not answer the issue properly in the earlier enquiry report and neither was the attention of the earlier Enquiry Officer drawn to the materials adequately. In so far as charge no. 2 is concerned, the petitioner had admitted his guilt. Charge No. 3 was fresh charge which has stood proved.

6. Learned counsel for the State submitted that once the petitioner admitted the charge any alleged irregularities in the departmental proceeding became irrelevant. The Court does not consider it proper to exceed to the prayer for a counter affidavit in view of the nature of the order to be passed based on official documents available on record in the writ petition.

7. In a departmental proceeding, if an enquiry report is of exoneration, the disciplinary authority is not bound by it and has the jurisdiction to differ with it. A show cause notice is then required to be given for this difference of opinion setting out the grounds for the same alongwith materials in support thereof with an opportunity to meet the same. If there are serious procedural infirmities in the proceedings inasmuch as evidence was not placed, procedures not followed, evidence not led, materials not placed, notwithstanding a report of exoneration for reasons discussed in writing, fresh proceedings may be initiated. But, in the present case, the order initiating the departmental proceeding dated 5.10.2007 only refers to an order of the District Magistrate without any details of the order much less does it disclose any grounds warranting fresh departmen