Arvind Singh Chandel, J.—This petition has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 28.06.2023 (Annexure P/18) whereby respondent No 1, i.e, the Disciplinary Authority has passed the order for fresh enquiry against the petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk and joined the services in the office of Child Development Project Office at Patepur, Vaishali on 15.06.1984. Subsequently, he was given the charge of Nazir in the District Welfare Office, West Champaran, Bettiah, where Bettiah Town PS Case No 794 of 2024 was registered against him for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 406, 420, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of said, disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and he was suspended vide order dated 08.08.2013 (Annexure P/2). Charge memo was issued to the petitioner (Annexure P/3). The enquiry officer submitted his report on 24.12.2014 (Annexure P/4). Second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner which was duly replied by him. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority, on 17.02.2016 passed the order of punishment of compulsory retirement (Annexure P/5). It was also directed that recovery of Rs 37,41,060/- shall be made from the petitioner and only subsistence allowance will be paid to the petitioner. Appeal preferred by the petitioner was also rejected (Annexure 6).

3. The petitioner filed a petition before this Court being CWJC No 1088 of 2017 which was disposed of vide order dated 26.06.2018 by which the order of punishment as well as appellate order were set aside. The matter was remitted back to the respondents with a direction that proceeding should be initiated from the stage of second show cause notice.

4. The disciplinary authority again passed the order of punishment of compulsory retirement from service and recovery of Rs 37,41,060/- vide order dated 16.04.2019 (Annexure P/8). The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also rejected vide order dated 19.02.2019 (Annexure P/9). The petitioner filed the petition being CWJC No 21841 of 2019 which was allowed vide order dated 25.04.2022 (Annexure P/10) on the finding that the charge memo was not accompanied by the list of statement of imputation, list of documents and list of witnesses. It was also found that there was violation of Rule 17 (4) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (for brevity the 2005 Rules). Liberty was given to the disciplinary authority to commence the enquiry from the defective stage and the disciplinary authority was directed to proceed and complete the enquiry within the period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Thereafter again, the same charge memo dated 02.03.2013 was served on the petitioner on 12.07.2022 which has been replied by the petitioner. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 18.10.2022 (Annexure P/14). Second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner which has been replied by the petitioner on 06.12.2022 wherein it has been specifically mentioned by the petitioner that charge memo dated 02.03.2013 on the basis of which disciplinary enquiry was conducted was not in accordance with the 2005 Rules and also in violation of the order dated 25.04.2022 passed by this Court in CWJC No 21841 of 2019. Thereafter, decision of conducting a fresh enquiry was taken by respondent No 2 vide impugned order dated 28.06.2023. Hence, this petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in terms of Rule 18 of the 2005 Rules, once the enquiry officer submitted the report, action was required to be taken by either accepting the same or diverting with the same or directing further enquiry by a speaking order indicating the reasons but in this case, it has not been done. On the contrary, a fresh charge memo has been served containing the same for which the enuiry report was earl