The judgment established that Rule-15 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 does not permit the setting aside of previous inquiries solely based on the dissatisfaction of the Disciplinary Authority with the report, except in cases of serious defects or unavailability of important witnesses.

JUDGMENT

Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this petition, petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:-

"(i) Writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued to the respondents to quash order dated 07.01.2020 i.e. Annexure P-6 whereby the respondent No.1 proposed to initiate de-novo enquiry against the petitioner.

(ii) Writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to conclude the enquiry proceedings as per the enquiry report submitted to the respondent No.1 i.e. Annexure P7".

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are as under:-

Petitioner is serving in the Forest Department of the respondents/State. Vide Annexure P-1, i.e. Memoradum dated 21.08.2014, the petitioner was informed that the department intended to hold an inquiry against him as well as one Shri Gopal Chand, under Rule-14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and the petitioner was called upon to submit his response to the Article of Charges appended with the Memorandum. Vide Annexure P-2, the petitioner submitted his response to the same. As the Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with the response so filed by the petitioner, accordingly, an Inquiry Officer was appointed to hold inquiry on the Charges which stood framed against the petitioner. Shri Hardev Singh Negi was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. Probably, feeling aggrieved by the slow speed with which the inquiry proceedings were being dealt with, the petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP No.1990 of 2019, titled as Devinder Singh Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others, which stood disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 23.08.2019 in the following terms:-

"3. It appears that a Charge Memo was issued under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, against the petitioner on 21.08.2014. The Inquiry Officer was appointed only in December, 2017. According to the petitioner, the inquiry is now completed but no final orders passed.

4. There is no justification for not concluding the proceedings and passing the final order, despite a lapse of five years. Even the appointment of Inquiry Officer has taken more than three years. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to conclude inquiry and pass a final order within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order".

3. After the conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report and the conclusion reached was that Article of Charge No.1 pertaining to dereliction of mandatory Government duties, i.e. failure to detect large scale of illicit feeling of trees in Patarana Beat thereby causing loss to the tune of Rs.59,43,125/- to the State exchequer as also Article of Charge No.2 that there was connivance of the delinquent officials with the offenders, were not proved and benefit of doubt existed in favour of the charged officials.

4. Upon receipt of the Inquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 07.01.2020, feeling dissatisfied with the Inquiry Report, observed on the basis of reasoning assigned therein that the Government was not accepting the Inquiry Report as submitted by the Inquiry Officer and a de-novo inquiry was being proposed to be conducted in the case. Vide same order, the Disciplinary Authority appointed Shri Arvind Kumar, IFS, DFO Rampur as Inquiring Authority to inquire into the charges framed against the petitioner as well as Shri Gopal Chand and vide another order of the even date, Shri Layak Ram Negi, Superintendent Grade-I, Office of CF Rampur was appointed as Presiding Officer to assist the Inquiry Officer. It is in this background that the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying for the reliefs already enumerated hereinabove.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has primarily argued that order dated 07.01.2020 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, vide which the Inquiry Report submitted by the Inquiry Officer has not been accepted and a de-novo in