Gujarat High Court
Union Of India & vs Bidyut Baran Nath Son Of Anilkumar Nath & ... on 10 February, 2015
Bench: Vijay Manohar Sahai, R.P.Dholaria
C/MCA/311/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR REVIEW) NO. 311 of 2015
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7383 of 2014
================================================================
UNION OF INDIA & 1....Applicant(s)
Versus
BIDYUT BARAN NATH SON OF ANILKUMAR NATH & 1....Opponent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MS ARCHANA U AMIN, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 2
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA
Date : 10/02/2015
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI) We have heard learned advocate Ms. Archana Amin for the applicant in this Miscellaneous Civil Application for review of our order dated 20.11.2014.
2. The writ petition was allowed on the grounds mentioned in paragraph Nos. 11 and 12 of the judgement which are extracted below:
"11. We have carefully gone through RBE No.171/1993. It does not provide that after the inquiry report is submitted by the Inquiry Officer, the chargesheet could be dropped and Page 1 of 3 C/MCA/311/2015 ORDER on the same allegations it was open to the respondents to issue second chargesheet. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dilip Ratilal Patel versus Gujarat State Financial Corporation reported in 2004 (4) GLR 2761 has held that it is open to the disciplinary authority to direct further inquiry but it cannot direct de novo or fresh inquiry.
12. We are of the opinion that Rule 9 and 10 of the Rules do not permit dropping of the chargesheet after the report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer in pursuance of the first chargesheet and issue second chargesheet on the same allegations. Therefore, second chargesheet issued by the respondents is totally illegal and in violation of the Rules and is liable to be quashed. Any action taken in pursuance of the second chargesheet by the respondents would automatically fall. However, it shall be open to the respondents to take decision on the first inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer pursuant to the first chargesheet as per Rule 10 of the Rules."
3. When the writ petition was heard, the respondents have not pointed out that any final order has been passed during the pendency of the writ petition or before filing of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the applicants states that the disciplinary authority passed Page 2 of 3 C/MCA/311/2015 ORDER final order prior to filing of the writ petition. If that is so, the said fact was not mentioned by the respondents in their affidavit but they have concealed it from this Court. However, we have quashed the second charge on the ground that Rule 9 and Rule 10 of the Rules do not permit issuance of second chargesheet on the same allegations. Once second chargesheet is quashed and set aside, any order subsequent thereto passed by the authority would become a nullity.
4. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any substance in this Miscellaneous Civil Application for review and this application for review is dismissed accordingly.
(V.M.SAHAI, ACJ.) (R.P.DHOLARIA,J.) (pkn) Page 3 of 3