AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-
“10.1That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 20.07.2026 (Annex P-1) passed by the respondent No. 2 General Manager for initiating again the departmental enquiry on the same charge sheet dated 14/12/2016 which was already be dismissed by the Hon'ble Court.
10.2That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner with all consequential benefits and the entire retiral dues to be paid with full pensionary benefits, as per the direction passed by the Hon'ble Court in WPS No. 6461/2025 dated 22/06/2026.
10.3That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate in the interest of justice.
10.4Cost of the petition may kindly be allowed.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action of the respondents in re-initiating the departmental enquiry vide order dated 20.07.2026, on the basis of the very same charge-sheet dated 14.12.2016, which had already been quashed by this Court vide its well-reasoned order dated 22.06.2026 passed in WPS No. 6461/2025, is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel submits that while quashing the earlier orders, this Court had specifically directed grant of continuity of service along with all consequential benefits. However, the said directions have not been complied with by the respondents till date. The liberty, if any, granted by this Court has been misconstrued and is now sought to be used as a means to harass the petitioner, who had already retired from service way back in the year 2019. Learned counsel further submits that initiating a fresh departmental enquiry after seven years on the same charges is unfair and amounts to misuse of the legal process. Therefore, the impugned order dated 20.07.2026 deserves to be quashed.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner had earlier filed WPS No. 6461 of 2025, which was decided vide order dated 22.06.2026. By the said order, liberty was granted to the respondent authorities to initiate departmental enquiry proceedings against the petitioner, in accordance with law, from the stage at which the earlier proceedings had been vitiated, if so desired. Learned counsel further submitted that, in order to ascertain the veracity of the allegations, an order has been passed to initiate the departmental enquiry afresh against the petitioner pursuant to the order passed in the said writ petition, as liberty had been granted to the respondent authorities. Hence, there is no illegality in the order impugned dated 20/07/2026.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties perused the pleadings and documents.
Admittedly, the petitioner had earlier preferred WPS No. 6461 of 2025, which stood decided vide order dated 22.06.2026. While quashing the orders impugned therein, this Court had specifically granted liberty to the respondent authorities to initiate departmental enquiry afresh against the petitioner in accordance with law from the stage where it was found vitiated, if so advised. Pursuant to the said liberty, the respondents have issued the impugned order dated 20.07.2026 for initiation of departmental enquiry.
The contention of the petitioner that initiation of enquiry after retirement and on the same charge-sheet is illegal cannot be accepted at this stage, as the impugned order is only at the stage of initiation and the petitioner will have ample opportunity to raise all his defences before the Enquiry Officer. Moreover, mere grant of consequential benefits does not preclude the employer from proceeding departmentally when liberty has been expressly granted by the Court.
Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merits, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. SD/-