Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2.

Keeping open the issue regarding maintainability

of the writ petition, we have considered the matter

otherwise on merits.

3.

The facts in a nutshell are that; a charge memo

dated 15.11.2010 came to be issued to the second

respondent alleging misappropriation and pursuant to the

charge memo, an enquiry came to be conducted by the

Deputy Director. The Enquiry Officer perused the material

on records and submitted a report absolving the second

respondent of any wrong doing by rendering a report

stating that the allegation of misappropriations are not

proved. A copy of the enquiry report is produced as

Annexure-A1 and the endorsement by the Chief Executive

3

Officer accepting the report dated 23.11.2010 is produced

as Annexure-A2. A show cause notice is produced as

Annexure-A3 and Annexure-A5 is the articles of charge.

Annexure-A6

is

the

reply

and

Annexure-

A11 is the Government Order intimating the second

respondent about dropping of the proceedings. Thereafter,

the Deputy Registrar (Enquiries-IV) of the Lokayukta has

communicated by a DO letter, thereby calling upon the first

respondent to hand over the enquiry to the Lokayukta and

the first respondent appears to have dutifully complied with

the demand on 01.12.2015. The same came to be

impugned before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has rendered a

categorical finding that the entrustment is done in a

mechanical manner without reference to the earlier enquiry

and the endorsement issued by the Government. The fact

that there was an earlier enquiry and a report absolving the

DGO, has been given a go-bye. The fact that the articles of

charge were issued in 2010 and a show cause notice was

issued, explanation called for, enquiry conducted and

endorsement issued, accepting the enquiry report and

4

dropping the charges are not in dispute. If that be so,

whether a second enquiry merely on the asking of the

Lokayukta is permissible?

4.

The tribunal has rendered a finding that the

impugned entrustment order is vitiated by non application

of mind as the same has been passed in a mechanical

manner without appreciating the findings of the Enquiry

Officer and the report absolving the second respondent of

any wrong doing and that too after a period of nearly five

years. The charge appears to be related to the year 2008-

09. Enquiry has been concluded in 2014. The learned

counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out as to which

provision enables the Government to reopen an enquiry or

which provision enables the Lokayukta to revisit or reopen a

concluded

enquiry.

The

conclusion

drawn

by

the

Government, dropping the proceedings have not been called

in question and have become final. It is settled law that no

man can be vexed twice. In support of our conclusion we

place reliance on the rulings of the Hon9ble Apex Court

5

rendered in (2007) 11 SCC 517 in the case of Kanailal Bera

Vs. Union of India and Others, wherein at para Nos.5 and 6

the Hon9ble Apex Court has held as follows:-

<5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant in support of his appeal submitted that the High

Court in a situation of this nature should not have

refused to entertain the writ petition as also the letters

patent appeal preferred by the appellant herein only on

the ground of delay and laches as a result whereof

manifest injustice has been caused to him. Learned

counsel would point out that in terms of Rule 27 of the

Central Reserve Police Force Rules, the respondent could

not have initiated a second inquiry after having found

that the charges have been partially proved in the first

inquiry. It was, furthermore, contended that in the

Central Reserve Police Force Act and the Rules framed

thereunder, there does not exist any provision for

imposition of punishment of confinement to Civil Lines

which was applicable only to the persons governed by the

Army Act.

6. The question as to whether a punishment of

confinement to Civil Lines could have been di