Point of Law : Civil Services - Open vigilance enquiry - Enquiry having come to its logical ends by either resulted into punishment of employee concerned or exoneration, matter should come to an end unless there is some fresh or new material no enquiry should be held because ultimately that will affect functioning of government servant and efficiency in performing government work.

ORDER :

1. Heard Sri Vivek Raj Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rajendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vivek Kumar Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The order under challenge is an order dated 02.06.2020 passed by the Under Secretary, Department of Vigilance, Anubhag-3, Government of U.P., Civil Secretariat, Lucknow, which is contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, initiating an open vigilance enquiry against the petitioner on the allegation of corruption having disproportionate assets beyond known source of income.

3. The petitioner has however not assailed the Annexure No.2, which is a letter dated 13.04.2018 preferred by the Joint Secretary, Department of Appointment, Anubhag-7, Government of U.P. addressing to the Under Secretary, Vigilance, Anubhag-3, Government of U.P., whereby the permission/ consent was granted for conducting vigilance enquiry against the petitioner.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was erstwhile member of Provincial Civil Services and promoted in the year 2007. On 31.07.2016, the petitioner retired from the post of Vice-Chairman, Ayodhya Vikas Pradhikaran, Ayodhya.

5. The disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on 16.09.2016 and the charge-sheet was served upon him on 30.09.2016. He submitted his defence reply to the charge-sheet on 24.11.2016. The enquiry concluded against the petitioner on 05.12.2017 and Enquiry Officer found Charge No.2 is partially proved. On 16.01.2018, the petitioner was served a show cause notice providing him findings of enquiry report and the petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 24.01.2018.

6. On 20.02.2018, the Disciplinary Authority completely exonerated the petitioner, however, in the meantime, vide order dated 12.01.2018 issued by the Under Secretary, Vigilance Department, Anubhag-3, Government of U.P., the vigilance enquiry against the petitioner started on the allegation that the petitioner has acquired disproportionate assets by corruption. On 07.03.2018, the Under Secretary, Department of Vigilance has issued a letter to the Joint Secretary, Department of Appointment, Government of U.P., making request that the details of the assets of the petitioner, so furnished to the department, be provided for conducting vigilance enquiry. In the aforesaid letter dated 07.03.2018, it has been categorically indicated that there are serious allegations against the petitioner regarding disproportionate assets indicating the details of some assets of the petitioner.

7. Replying to the aforesaid letter dated 07.03.2018 the Joint Secretary of the Department of Appointment apprised the Under Secretary of Vigilance Department that after being promoted in the year 2007 the petitioner has not furnished the property details to the department. Further, if any vigilance enquiry is conducted against the petitioner, the government shall have no objection to that effect.

8. Pursuant to the aforesaid correspondences an open vigilance enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner by means of impugned order dated 02.06.2020.

9. The sole ground to assail the aforesaid order dated 02.06.2020 is that an open vigilance enquiry has been initiated on the same set of facts, which have already been considered by the Disciplinary Authority so the same may not be permitted to be conducted. The petitioner has however not assailed the order dated 13.04.2018 whereby the permission to conduct open vigilance enquiry has been granted.

10. Sri V. R. Singh, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the State Government is reversing its own decision taken in the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner which has attained finality. Therefore, it is a futile and punitive exercise just to harass and humiliate the petitioner for no cogent reason.

11. Sri V.R. Singh has placed reliance of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in re