The methodology for holding a fresh enquiry must adhere to legal norms, and unequal treatment of individuals in disciplinary proceedings may warrant interference by the court.

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

2. Petitioner was on deputation under the National Rural Employment Programme (NREP) of the Rural Development Department. He was holding the post of Assistant Engineer. During his period of posting, many different schemes for construction of roads under the N.R.P. Programme, was planned and approved by the competent authority. It was also put under execution. While the plans were being executed, a State level flying squad made a visit to the places where the schemes were being carried out to make a physical inspection as to the quality of the work being done by the agency.

3. Based on the report of the flying squad, the Junior Engineer, namely, one Sri Satyendra Yadav, the Assistant Engineer, the present petitioner as well as the District Engineer, were put under suspension and a decision was taken to proceed with them departmentally.

4. One Atul Kumar Karmkar, a Chief Engineer was appointed as the Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry against the petitioner as well as the District Engineer with regard to the set of charges which was drawn up against them. The charges have been brought on record as Annexure-4. Four charges under different heads in relation to those projects were required to be gone into and have been gone into by the Enquiry Officer. The report of the Enquiry Officer is Annexure-5 which is dated 27.04.2001.

5. Learned senior counsel representing the petitioner has taken this Court through the charges, the evidence so produced, both on behalf of Presenting Officer as well as the delinquent and the findings recorded by the enquiry officer on each and every head. The final opinion of the Enquiry Officer in relation to all the four charges was that the delinquents could not be found guilty on any of the charges levelled against them. With such a finding, the enquiry report was forwarded to the State Government.

6. The Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with the findings, because he decided to refer the matter for a fresh enquiry before the Commissioner of departmental enquiry, as would be evident from reading of Annexure-6 to the writ application. The order for fresh enquiry and the reason therein has been gone into through this Court. The basic reason which has been given for holding a fresh or a re-enquiry is that proper procedure was not followed by the Enquiry Officer. Appreciation of evidence and conclusions have not been done properly and the finding reached therein may not be acceptable to the Government.

7. The so called fresh enquiry or denovo enquiry was held. Petitioner was absolved of some of the charges, but was held guilty of charge no. 2 and partially guilty with regard to charge no. 4. This formed the basis for imposition of punishment. The punishments are: reduction of the petitioner to the lowest scale of pay; debar him from promotion for the next five years as well as non-payment of his salary for the period of suspension except subsistence allowance. The order of punishment is Annexure-1. This punishment order is being challenged on many a grounds which have been urged at the bar by the learned senior counsel, which will being noticed herein below.

8. Submission is that if the Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with the enquiry report or the manner, in which the enquiry was conducted, the matter could have been remitted back to him to undo that damage or mistake by either considering further evidence or adopting a procedure which would bring it in-conformity with the procedure, in which such proceeding was to be conducted. If he was of the opinion that the Enquiry Officer has not reached the right conclusion, based on the evidence or material which was brought on record, he had a right of disagreement, but neither of the two procedures were adopted. Referring the matter to yet another body or person, for a new enquiry by ignoring the findings earlier given by an Enquiry Officer is not only un-called for, but d