B. K. Sharma, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Upadhya, learned State counsel. The petitioner presently serving as the Block Development Officer (BDO) in Pachim Nalbari Development Block, is aggrieved by Annexures-8 and 18 notifications dated 20.11.2010 and 20.11.2010 respectively. By the first notification, while providing that the petitioner would continue to hold the office of the BDO in the same capacity, it has further been provided that he would continue to do so without any financial power. By the second notification, a second enquiry officer has been appointed to enquire into the charges brought against the petitioner, such a course of action was adopted in view of the purported inconsistency in the report submitted by the earlier enquiry officer on conclusion of the enquiry.

2. The petitioner has also prayed for release of his salary for the period of 09.04.2008 to 04.05.2010. Another prayer made in this writ petition is to provide full salary in the revised scale of pay. The petitioner has also prayed for giving him full charge of the post being held by him.

3. Annexure-18 notification dated 20.11.2010 was been issued in reference to the departmental proceeding that was initiated against the petitioner vide memorandum dated 31.12.2009. It appears that the enquiry was concluded and the enquiry officer submitted his report. Being not satisfied with the said report, the Govt. of Assam in the Panchayat and Rural Development Department issued the notification dated 20.11.2010 appointing another enquiry officer to enquire into the charges on the ground of there being inconsistency in the report submitted on 06.10.2010 by the earlier enquiry officer.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the enquiry was concluded with furnishing of the report, the disciplinary authority could not have issued the impugned notification dated 20.11.2010 by appointing another enquiry officer to get the desired result. He also submits that such a course of action has been adopted by the disciplinary authority when it felt that the enquiry report was not favourable to it. In this connection, he has placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in 2005 (3) GLT 457: Bidyut Buragohain Vs. State of Assam.

5. As regards the non-payment of the revised scale and non-release of the salary, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no earthly reasons as to why the petitioner should be paid due salary in the revised scale of pay. According to him, such a course of action means exploitation of labour.

6. Mr. Upadhya, learned State counsel on the other hand submits that since the petitioner was earlier placed under suspension and the said period of suspension is yet to be regularised, he could not be paid the revised scale of pay as he did not cross the efficiency bar. According to him, the de novo enquiry ordered by the impugned notification dated 20.11.2010 is permissible as per the provisions of the Manual of the Departmental Proceeding.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire records. In the counter affidavit filed by the Govt. in the Panchayat and Rural Development Department through the Deputy Secretary on 08.08.2011, it was contended in paragraph-7 of the said affidavit that the petitioner was not allowed to handle the financial transactions since a departmental proceeding was pending against him. As regards the enquiry conducted against the petitioner, it has been stated that since the enquiry report of State Enquiry Officer was found incomplete and having inconsistence, further enquiry was ordered through another enquiry officer. In paragraph-14 of the said affidavit, it has been contended that since a departmental proceeding is pending against the petitioner, fixation of pay cannot be allowed to him.

8. The same very authority has filed another affidavit on 15.05.2012 reiterating the s