TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 760X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivisional Special Officer to the petitioner whereby the petitioner was informed that the Government has decided to hold a Departmental Enquiry against him as per Government Order Textile Section, dated 31-8-1989. 3. Shri Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the issuance of charge sheet dated 9-2-1988 itself is not sustainable in law in view of the order passed by this Court dated 24-3-1986 in Writ Petition No. 598 of 1987, which reads thus : Mr. V. D. Govilkar for the petitioner. Mr. M. B. Mehere, Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent. The enquiry to be completed and the report to be made not later than 15th June, 1986. Mr. Govilkar states that the petitioner will not apply adjournment at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we directed the enquiry to be completed and the report to be submitted not later than 15th June, 1986 that Mr. Govilkar applied for permission to withdraw the petition which we allowed him to do so. If we had initially fixed the date later than 15th June, 1986 for the completion of the enquiry, Mr. Govilkar would not have applied for permission to withdraw the petition. Hence looked at either way, we see no reason why the opponent should be placed in an invidious position to his detriment, merely because the applicant has not taken expeditious steps to even start the enquiry much less complete it within the time ordered. Civil application dismissed. 5. Shri Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner states that since the applicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he departmental enquiry instituted against the petitioner and therefore, the respondent thought it fit to issue fresh charge sheet to the petitioner though on the same set of facts and charges. The learned AGP contended that the issuance of fresh charge sheet dated 9-2-1988 is perfectly legal and sustainable in law. 7. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the respective parties. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the first charge sheet dated 10-3-1986 consisted of eight charges. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the same in Writ Petition No. 598 of 1986 and this Court on 24-3-1986 permitted the petitioner to withdraw the petition by specifically observing that the enquiry should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise, wants to reopen the case of departmental enquiry against the petitioner on the same set of facts and for the same misconduct which, in our considered view, is not permissible in law. 9. As we have already observed hereinabove, after 15th June, 1986, the respondent lost the legal right to proceed with the departmental enquiry against the petitioner by virtue of the specific order dated 24-3-1986 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 598 of 1986 and therefore, the question of starting new enquiry by fresh charge sheet dated 9-3-1988 on the same set of charges and for the same misconduct, does not arise. 10. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the charge sheet dated 9-2-1988 issued by the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
