Disciplinary authorities cannot initiate a de-novo inquiry after prior exoneration without legal basis, affirming the need for adherence to established procedures in disciplinary actions.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.

1. Heard Sri Apoorva Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rama Pati Shukla (R.P. Shukla), learned counsel for the opposite parties.

2. Sri R.P. Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite parties has filed counter affidavit, the same is taken on record and the rejoinder affidavit thereof has already been filed, which is on record.

3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

"(a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the Respondent No.2 as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition;

(b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned office order dated 22.02.2024 passed by the Respondent No.2, after summoning the original from the respondents;

(c) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No.2 to reinstate the petitioner in service and to pay full salary to the petitioner for the period the petitioner remained under suspension."

4. So far as the Prayer No.(b) of the writ petition is concerned, Sri R.P. Shukla has informed, on the basis of instructions, that by means of order dated 22.02.2024 only this much has been directed that in the present matter setting aside the first enquiry report, the denovo enquiry be conducted against the petitioner considering the representation of the complainant dated 09.01.2024, which has been filed as Annexure No.CA-1 to the counter affidavit. Though copy of order dated 22.02.2024 has not been enclosed with the counter affidavit.

5. This Court on the first date of admission i.e. 06.02.2025 passed the following order:-

"Heard.

Under challenge is the order dated 21.01.2025, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition whereby the petitioner has been placed suspension. Also under challenge is the office order dated 22.02.2024.

Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts are that the petitioner claims to be working on the post of Executive Engineer. A complaint was submitted by a lady against the petitioner. In pursuance to the said complaint, the matter was referred to the committee as has been constituted in terms of the Sexual Harassment of. Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 2013"). The committee submitted its report dated 16.05.2023, a copy of which is annexure 6 to the writ petition whereby the allegations were not proved against the petitioner.

Subsequently, with the change in the committee, another report dated 30.08.2023, a copy of which is annexure 8 to the writ petition was submitted whereby the charges sheet have been found to be proved.

Subsequent thereto, the petitioner was issued with a charge sheet dated 12.10.2023, a copy of which is annexure 9 to the writ petition. An inquiry report dated 23.01.2024, a copy of which is annexure 11 to the writ petition was submitted whereby the charges were not found proved against the petitioner.

Subsequently, vide order dated 30.04.2024, a copy of which is annexure 12 to the writ petition, upon a complaint being submitted by the complainant/lady, a de-novo inquiry was directed. As per the averments made in paragraphh 21 of the writ petition, the inquiry report was submitted in which again the petitioner has been exonerated. It is also contended that by means of the order dated 22.02.2024, the first inquiry report had been set aside and a fresh inquiry had been directed.

Now, by means of the order i