The main legal point established in the judgment is that the normal rule is that there can only be one enquiry and the second enquiry is impermissible.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned second enquiry report of the third respondent in Proceedings No. Nil dated 28.06.2022 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents herein to pass final orders on the original enquiry report dated 25.04.2019 which was communicated to the petitioner on 03.05.2021 and consequently promote the petitioner as General Manager, Stationery and Printing Department from the date of promotion of her immediate junior with all consequential service and monetary benefits, if she is otherwise eligible, within a time frame as fixed by this Court.)

1.Heard Mr. K.Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.Arun, learned Additional Advocate General-V appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:-

2.1. The petitioner while working as a Works Manager-II, Government Central Press, Chennai was levelled with 10 charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules [hereinafter referred to as “Rules”] through a charge memo dated 01.02.2018. Not being satisfied with the petitioner''s explanation dated 01.12.2018 to the levelled charges, an Enquiry Officer was appointed on 21.03.2019, who after full fledged inquiry, had submitted a detailed inquiry report dated 25.04.2019, holding that all the ten charges as “not proved”.

2.2. After a period of 10 months, the respondents had appointed another Enquiry Officer to conduct a fresh inquiry in connection with the Original Charge Memo dated 01.02.2018. When the petitioner had challenged the action before this Court in W.P.No.4343 of 2021, the Writ Petition came to be dismissed with a direction to the Disciplinary Authority to complete the inquiry within a period of 45 days. Consequently, the second inquiry report came to be passed on 28.06.2022, holding that all the ten charges as “proved”, which is challenged in the present Writ Petition.

3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Rule 17(b) of the Rules does not provide for conducting of a second inquiry and therefore, the entire inquiry proceedings after the Original Enquiry Report dated 25.04.2019 passed, is vitiated.

4. Per contra, Mr.V.Arun, learned Additional Advocate General-V appearing for the respondents submitted that the present inquiry is only a continuation of the earlier inquiry and would amount to a further inquiry, which is permissible under the Rules. He also submitted that the charges are very serious in nature, causing a huge loss. He further submitted that the petitioner herein had been participating and cooperating in the inquiry for the past nine months and in view of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.4343 of 2021 dated 26.02.2021, their conduct of inquiry has been ratified by this Court, which had permitted them to conclude the inquiry, if necessary on a day-to-day basis. The learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that since the petitioner had voluntarily participated in the further inquiry, she is estopped from raising the ground that the second inquiry is impermissible. The learned Additional Advocate General sought time limit for concluding the proceedings.

5. Two issues that requires to be predominantly addressed in the present Writ Petition are as follows:-

a) Whether conduct of a second inquiry under Rule 17(b), after the first Enquiry Officer has filed his report, is permissible?

b) When a learned Single Judge of this Court had passed orders for completing the second inquiry within a stipulated time, whether the petitioner can question such proceedings?

6. Rule 17(b) of the Rules prescribes the procedure to be followed by the Disciplinary Authority for imposing major penalties. While prescribing the detailed procedure to be adopted in every case w