The main legal point established in the judgment is that there can be only one inquiry in respect of a charge for a particular misconduct, and a de novo inquiry may be conducted only if there are technical or other good grounds for the same.

ORDER :

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the notification no.8717(S) dated 23.09.2013 issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand- the respondent no.4, whereby the petitioner has been inflicted punishment of censor and stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect. Further prayer has been made for quashing notification no.6419(S) dated 28.08.2014 issued by the Under Secretary, Road Construction Department-respondent no.3, whereby the order dated 23.09.2013 passed by the respondent no. 4 has been affirmed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Research Assistant in Road Construction Department, Supaul Division, Bihar on 7-7-1981 and he superannuated from service on 31.08.2016 from the post of Assistant Director, Quality Control, National Highway Division, Hazaribag. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner when he was posted as Assistant Director, Quality Control (Road Sub-division), National Highway Division, Medininagar, Daltonganj as informed by the respondent no.5 to the respondent no.4 vide letter as contained in memo no.2473 dated 20.12.2007, levelling various charges of irregularities committed by him while discharging the duty on the said post at Giridih with a recommendation to take disciplinary action against the petitioner. Accordingly, a memo of charge was also served to him by the respondent no.4 on 28.01.2008, particularly, for not handing over some measurement books to his successor in post, for conspiring in disappearance of some articles from the laboratory, for submitting fabricated enquiry report for a certain period and also for unauthorized absence from the present place of posting. Thereafter, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner in which one Navin Kumar, In-charge Superintending Engineer, Advance Planning Circle, Road Construction Department, Ranchi was appointed as Conducting Officer and one Satrughan Mishra, the then Under Secretary, Road Construction Department was appointed as Presenting Officer. The Conducting Officer submitted inquiry report vide letter no.628 dated 05.11.2012, however, the said inquiry report was kept in abeyance by the respondent no.4 stating that the same was incomplete and vague. Thereafter, a direction was issued by the respondent no.4 vide memo no.745 (S) dated 29.01.2013 for conducting 2nd inquiry by appointing Pramod Kumar Singh, (Special Rationing Officer, Ranchi) as Conducting Officer and Ashok Kumar Thakur, Section Officer, Road Construction Department, Ranchi as Presenting Officer in terms with the order passed by the State Government. The petitioner submitted his reply on 07.08.2013, denying the charges levelled against him. However, 2nd inquiry report was submitted by the said Conducting Officer on 18.5.2013 in which the charges levelled against the petitioner were found true and, thereafter, vide notification no.8717 (S) dated 23.09.2013 an order was passed against him inflicting punishment of censor and stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner then preferred an appeal on 20.03.2014 before the Governor of Jharkhand, through the respondent no.2, however, the same was rejected vide notification no. 6419(s) dated 28.08.2014 issued under the signature of the respondent no.3, affirming the order of punishment passed against him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order dated 23.09.2013 is void ab-initio as the respondent no.4 has imposed punishment by getting second departmental inquiry conducted by appointing another Inquiry Officer without passing any final order upon the first departmental inquiry report submitted vide letter no.628 dated 05.11.2012. The impugned order of punishment is absolutely arbitrary, unjust and illegal, since both minor and major punishments were imposed against the petitioner under the same