Appointment of a new enquiry officer after the imposition of a previous punishment is not permissible.

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, challenging the validity of the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 19.08.2011, by which a fresh enquiry had been ordered by appointing an enquiry officer, to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner has further stated that, based on the charges already levelled against him, by way of charge memo, dated 21.07.2008, an enquiry had been conducted and an enquiry report, dated 28.10.2008, had been submitted. Based on the said enquiry report, the first respondent had passed an order, dated 14.08.2009, imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years, without cumulative effect. In fact, the punishment imposed on the petitioner, by the first respondent, had been given effect to, as the petitioner had not challenged the same. However, after the expiry of the punishment period of two years, the first respondent had issued the impugned proceedings, dated 19.08.2011, stating that a fresh enquiry would be conducted, in respect of the charges levelled against the petitioner, by appointing an enquiry officer. The reason stated for holding a fresh enquiry is that the earlier enquiry had not been conducted in a proper manner. It had also been stated that the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation, on 31.01.2012. However, he has not been allowed to retire from service and the retirement benefits due to him had not been paid till date.

3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, the averments and the allegations made by the petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, had been denied. It has been stated that a fresh enquiry into allegations levelled against the petitioner had to be ordered as the previous enquiry officer had not followed the procedures stipulated in G.O.2(D) 681, Revenue Ser.7-2, dated 19.12.2008 and the procedures prescribed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, had submitted that a fresh enquiry has been ordered, by the first respondent, as per Rule 36 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, and therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner, is devoid of merits.

4. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on perusal of records available, it is seen that the enquiry officer had been appointed to conduct the enquiry, in respect of charges levelled against the petitioner, by way of a charge memo, dated 21.07.2008. The enquiry officer had submitted an enquiry report, dated 28.10.2008, based on which the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years, without cumulative effect, had been imposed on the petitioner, by way of the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 14.08.2009. However, after a period of nearly two years, the first respondent had passed the impugned proceedings, dated 19.08.2011, appointing another enquiry officer to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner stating that the enquiry officer appointed earlier had not conducted the enquiry, as per the procedures contemplated in G.O.2(D) 681, Revenue Ser. 7-2, dated 19.12.2008. There is no doubt that it was open to the first respondent disciplinary authority to differ from the enquiry report, dated 28.10.2008, and to impose a punishment, on the petitioner, after having issued a show cause notice to him, as per the procedures established by law. However, it would not be open to the first respondent to appoint another enquiry officer, to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner, after an order of punishment had been issued, imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years, withou