JUDGMENT : - Rakesh Tiwari 1. HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. THE petitioner was appointed as Seenchpal in the irrigation department. He joined his services in the office of the Executive Engineer, Muzaffarnagar Division, Ganga Canal, Muzaffarnagar with effect from 18.1.1969. The petitioner alleges that on account of his trade union activities, one Prem Pal Sharma filed a number of complaints against him to the effect that he was responsible for causing revenue loss to the department in 1394 fasli. Copies of these reports have been annexed as Annexures-1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition. Enquiries were initiated against the petitioner in the complaints at various levels by the Assistant Engineer-II/Sub-Divisional Officer-II and the Deputy Revenue Officer-II/Ziledar Kotwal. They vide their reports dated 29.1.1988 and 2.2.1988 respectively found the complaints baseless and unfounded. Thereafter, the Executive Engineer, Muzaffarnagar Division Ganga Canal, Muzaffarnagar, respon-dent No. 2 also made enquiries at his own level and recorded a note that complaints against the petitioner were result of personal vendatta with Prem Pal Sharma. Copy of the said note dated 3.2.1988 is appended as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. 3. IT appears that Prem Pal Sharma was not satisfied and he again moved another application before respondent No. 2, inter alia, stating that he was not satisfied with the findings recorded in the reports dated 29.1.1988 and 2.2.1988 and the note by respondent No. 2 dated 3.2.1988. Conceding to the demand of Prem Pal Sharma, respondent No. 2 vide order dated 15.4.1988 directed the Deputy Revenue Officer-III to again hold enquiry. In the meantime, respondent No. 2 also promoted the petitioner from the post of Seenchpal to the post of Amin, i.e., Sinchai Parvekshak, vide order dated 30.6.1988. The petitioner by letter dated 1.9.1988 was informed that the Deputy Revenue Officer-III has been appointed as inquiry officer and he may submit his explanation on any working day. The petitioner by letter dated 1.9.1988 informed that he has not been served with any charge-sheet, therefore, he can neither submit any explanation nor face the enquiry. 4. THE Deputy Revenue Officer-III submitted his report dated 5.9.1988 after concluding ex parte enquiry, finding charges proved against three persons, namely (1) Sita Ram, Consolidation Amin, (2) Kalu Ram, Seenchpal and (3) petitioner Sushil Kumar, Sinchai Parvekshak. 4. THE Deputy Revenue Officer-III submitted his report dated 5.9.1988 after concluding ex parte enquiry, finding charges proved against three persons, namely (1) Sita Ram, Consolidation Amin, (2) Kalu Ram, Seenchpal and (3) petitioner Sushil Kumar, Sinchai Parvekshak. The petitioner was thereafter served with a charge-sheet by the Sub-Divisional Officer-III Shri A. B. Pathak on the basis of the ex parte enquiry report dated 5.9.1988 but no papers were given to the petitioner along with the charge-sheet dated 17.4.1989 on which the department relied upon, hence the petitioner requested the inquiry officer, vide letter dated 25.4.1989 to give copies of all the documents. The petitioner also submitted his objection and explanation to the charge-sheet, vide reply dated 14.9.1989 specifically asserting that he may be permitted to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and also to permit to give him oral evidence and personal explanation, but no opportunity was given to the petitioner and he was not permitted even to cross-examine the witnesses of the management and enquiry officer submitted report. 5. IT is alleged by the petitioner that he was suspended, vide order dated 22.1.1990 on the ground that the inquiry officer has found all the charges established against the petitioner. On 22.1.1990 he was again served with a show cause notice and called upon to tender his explanation before a three-member disciplinary committee. 6. THE counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not served even with the report of the inquiry officer, his reply dated 2.2.1990 was not considered and the inquiry officer completed the enquiry behind his back without giving opportunity taking the charges contained in charge-sheet dated 17.4.1989 as proved without examining any witness or opportunity to adduce defence. He submits that the disciplinary committee did not give any opportunity of personal hearing to him. In fact no proceedings were held by disciplinary committee after 2.2.1990. No enquiry was held. However, vide order dated 14.10.1991, respondent No. 2, who was a member of the disciplinary committee on the basis of second enquiry reverted the petitioner from the post of Sinchai Parvekshak to the post of Seenchpal and further directed that the petitioner will not be entitled for any wages for the period of suspension. It is this order dated 14.10.1991 which has been impugned in the present writ petition. It is this order dated 14.10.1991 which has been impugned in the present writ petition. It has further been contended by the counsel for the petitioner that Shri Sita Ram and Shri Kalu Ram were awarded only minor punishment of withholding annual increment vide order dated 14.10.1991 whereas the respondents reverted him withholding his wages for the period of suspension. He lastly submits that in any case second enquiry into same charges is not permissible as the earlier enquiries were not vitiated on account of any procedural flaws ordering repeated enquiries at various levels and de-novo inquiry thereafter merely because complainant is not satisfied is nothing but harassment of the concerned enquiry. Once after considering the material on record it has been found that the employee was not guilty of the charges and the matter having been dropped in that de-novo second enquiry is not permissible as earlier enquiry does not suffer from any procedural flaws. 7. IN the counter-affidavit, it has been averred that the petitioner was called in the preliminary enquiry by Shri Ram Chandra Solanki on the complaint of Prem Pal Sharma but he did not pay any heed to it, and that a charge-sheet was given in which enquiry was held and he was found guilty has been awarded punishment of reversion. 8. FROM the facts narrated above, one thing is very clear that the enquiry proceedings were conducted in a very haphazard manner. This is apparent from the following chart of events : (i) 30.6.1988/petitioner promoted as Sinchai Parvekshak. (ii) 5.9.1988/Ex parte enquiry report submitted (Annexure-7). (iii) 17.4.1989/Charge-sheet was served after enquiry had been completed (Annexure-8). (iv) 22.1.1990/Petitioner was suspended (Annexure-10). (v) 22.1.1990/show cause notice issued (Annexure-11). (vi) 14.10.1991/Petitioner was reverted by the impugned order (Annexure-13). (vii) 14.10.1991/Orders relating to other delinquent employees awarding minor punishment passed (Annexures-14 and 15). From the above events, it is apparent that the enquiry report was submitted first and thereafter charge-sheet was given to the petitioner. After the petitioner was charge-sheeted, a show cause notice was given and lastly he was reverted by the impugned order dated 14.10.1991. Thus, it is established that the departmental proceedings proceeded against the petitioner in a very arbitrary manner. Neither the petitioner was supplied the documents relied upon in the enquiry proceedings inspite of his request nor he was given a copy of the report of the inquiry officer. Thus, it is established that the departmental proceedings proceeded against the petitioner in a very arbitrary manner. Neither the petitioner was supplied the documents relied upon in the enquiry proceedings inspite of his request nor he was given a copy of the report of the inquiry officer. He was also not afforded any opportunity to cross-examine any of the witnesses or opportunity of personal hearing. The charge-sheet was also not approved by the Executive Engineer. Hence, the proceedings against the petitioner are vitiated in law. 9. THIS Court cannot ignore the fact that in the report dated 5.9.1988 submitted by the Deputy Revenue Officer-III, Sita Ram and Kalu Ram, who were charged for verifying and approving the Khasra entries recorded by the petitioner for 1394 fasli, were only awarded minor punishment. 10. IN so far as the question of holding second enquiry is concerned. IN K. R. Deb v. Collector Excise, Shillong, AIR 1971 SC 1447 , the Apex Court was faced with similar situation. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that Rule 15 of the (C.C.S.) (C.C.A.) Rules do not contemplated successive enquiries and at any rate, even there was no provision for setting aside earlier enquiries without giving any reason whatsoever. The Apex Court held that "Rule 15, on the face of it, really provides for one inquiry but it may be possible if in a particular case there has been no proper enquiry because some serious defect has crept into the inquiry or some important witnesses were not available at the time of the inquiry or were not examined for some other reason, the disciplinary authority may ask the inquiry officer to record further evidence. But there is no provision in Rule 15 for completely setting aside previous inquiries on the ground that the report of the inquiry officer or officers does not appeal to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority has enough powers to reconsider the evidence itself and come to its own conclusion under Rule 9. It further held in para 14 that "in our view, the rules do not contemplate an action such as was taken by the Collector on February 13, 1962. It seems to us that the Collector, instead of taking responsibility himself, was determined to get some officer to report against the appellant. It further held in para 14 that "in our view, the rules do not contemplate an action such as was taken by the Collector on February 13, 1962. It seems to us that the Collector, instead of taking responsibility himself, was determined to get some officer to report against the appellant. The procedure adopted was not only not warranted by the rules but was harassing to the appellant. " In case of State of Assam and another v. J. N. Roy Biswas the Apex Court held that "once a disciplinary case has closed and the official re-instated, presumably on full exoneration, a chagrined Government cannot re-start the exercise in the absence of specific power to review or revise, vested by rules in some authority. The basics of the rule of law cannot be breached without legal provision or other vitiating factor invalidating the earlier enquiry. For the present, this is theoretical because no such deadly defect is apparent on the record." 11. A single Judge of this Court in case of Rajendra Prasad Gupta, 1999 (4) AWC 3446 : 1999 (3) ESC 2309, after referring to several cases of Apex Court held that "one thing is very clear that a disciplinary enquiry on the same charges and material is not barred, if the earlier enquiry is vitiated on account of certain technical and procedural flaws. In such circumstances, the employer is at liberty to get the matter re-examined on merits by initiating the second enquiry. Other conclusion, which flows from the above decisions is that if after considering the material on record, the disciplinary authority has found that an employee was not guilty of the charges and has been exculpated of the allegations made against him in that event, the de-novo enquiry would be nothing but harassment of the concerned employee and, therefore, the de-novo or second enquiry would not be legally permissible. 12. BEFORE framing of rules known as U. P. Government Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, Rule 55 of he C.C.A. (C.C.S.) Rules, 1930, were applicable in U. P. There is no provision for second enquiry or successive enquiries in these rules. From the reasons stated above, arbitrariness, illegality and malicious is writ large on the face of the record. The second enquiry was without jurisdiction. 13. FOR above reasons the writ petition is allowed. From the reasons stated above, arbitrariness, illegality and malicious is writ large on the face of the record. The second enquiry was without jurisdiction. 13. FOR above reasons the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.10.1991 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) is quashed and respondents are directed to pay arrears of wages to the petitioner as Sinchai Parvekshak from the date of this reversion to the post of Seenchpal as well as for the period of suspension, i.e., 22.1.1990 to 14.10.1991, within 3 months. 14. NO order as to costs.