The court ruled that a de-novo enquiry cannot be initiated based on a previously quashed charge-sheet, necessitating a fresh charge-sheet for any new proceedings.

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

Kaushik Goswami, J.

1. Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned CGC for the respondents.

2. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing inter-alia, the actions of the respondent authority to initiate de-novo departmental proceedings against the petitioner which has been conveyed by letter dated 04.11.2015 (Annexure-F), order dated 26.12.2015 (Annexure-G), by which the respondent authority appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct the said enquiry into the charges developed against the petitioner and the Enquiry Notice dated 07.02.2016 (Annexure-A).

3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner joined the CISF as Constable/GD on 15.01.1994 and accordingly, was discharging his duties.

4. On 06.07.2011, while the petitioner was returning from Calcutta, after attending his official training, to his present unit at Jorhat, the petitioner was robbed in the station. The petitioner was also administered some medicines. On somehow reaching his parent unit at Jorhat, the petitioner was taken to Jorhat Civil Hospital wherefrom he was referred to Psychiatrist for further examination. The petitioner was then taken to the Hospital of Assam Rifle, where the doctor recorded that the petitioner was under the influence of liquor.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide an order dated 08.07.2011 and was also informed that a disciplinary proceeding is going to be initiated against him.

6. Subsequently, on 02.08.2011, a copy of the memorandum of charges was issued against the petitioner wherein the respondent authority alleged that the petitioner was using indecent and filthy language towards his senior official under influence of liquor.

7. Accordingly, departmental enquiry was held, wherein the petitioner was found guilty of the charges framed and thereafter, by order dated 22.12.2011 the petitioner was awarded the penalty of 'removal from service'.

8. Being aggrieved by the said removal order dated 22.11.2011, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General, CISF, Airport (E & NE), HQrs., Kolkata. However, the appellate authority rejected the said appeal vide order dated 24.04.2012.

9. The petitioner thereafter, filed a writ petition being WP(C) No.30/2013 before the Meghalaya High Court against the said removal order dated 22.11.2011 and the appellate authority's order dated 24.04.2012.

10. The Meghalaya High Court vide judgment and order dated 20.07.2015, in the aforesaid writ proceedings, was pleased to set aside the aforesaid removal order dated 22.11.2011 and the aforesaid appellate authority's order dated 24.04.2012. The Meghalaya High Court was further pleased to grant leave to the respondent authorities to take fresh enquiry if they so desire or to reinstate the petitioner.

11. Paragraph 14 of the said judgment and order dated 20.07.2015 is extracted hereunder for ready reference-

"14. For the reasons discussed above and keeping in mind the principle of natural justice and fair enquiry I hereby set aside the impugned orders dated 22.12.2011 and 24.04.2012 and leave the respondent to take fresh enquiry if they so desire or to reinstate the petitioner. In case if any enquiry is held, the two witnesses namely HC/GD Bhuwan Ram and Constable SS Kedare, are also directed to depose before the enquiry authority and disclose the truth. The authority concerned also to examine the Doctor and to pass necessary order in accordance with law after giving full opportunity of defence to the petitioner."

12. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed by an office memorandum dated 04.11.2015 that the petitioner was reinstated in service in the same status, he was, as on the date of passing the final order of penalty and that a de-novo enquiry is going to be conducted against him in terms of the said judgment and order dated 20.07.2015.

13. Paragraph 3 of the said office memorandum dated 04.11.2015 is extracted