JUDGMENT Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J. 1. The writ petitioner is an employee of West Bengal Forest Development Corporation Limited. He was appointed as trainee in the year 1972 and thereafter in April 1975 he was appointed on regular basis. He was promoted to the different higher posts. Lastly in the year 1996 he was promoted to the post of Range Manager and posted at Buxa Logging Division in the district of Cooch Bihar. In the year 2003 he was transferred to Cashew Plantation Division and was posted at Range-I at Midnapur Sadar. By and under a notice dated 12th April, 2005 he was placed under suspension under rule 7(1) of the West Bengal Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971 by the Divisional Manager, Cashew Plantation Division, Midnapur. Thereafter a charge-sheet was issued to the appellant/writ petitioner by the General Manager (headquarter) of the West Bengal Forest Development Corporation Limited under office order No. 1/ORG/205 dated 27th October, 2005. The charge-sheet is set out hereunder: WEST BENGAL FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (A Government of West Bengal Undertaking) Office of the Managing Director 6A, Raja Subodh Mulick Squire, 7th floor, Kolkata-13. Office Order No. 1/ORG/2005 Dated 27-10-2005 CHARGE SHEET The undersigned proposes to hold an enquiry under rule 10 of the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1971, against Shri Chitta Ranjan Bhuniya, RM (under suspension). The substance of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour, negligence in duty, violation of superiors order in respect of which the enquiry is proposed to be held is set out in the articles of charge (Annexure-I). 1. A statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour, negligence of duties, violation of Superiors Order in support of each article of charge is enclosed (Annexure-II). A list of documents by which, and a list of witnesses by whom the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained are also enclosed (Annexure-III & IV). 2. Shri Chittan Ranjan Bhuniya, RM (under suspension) is directed to submit within 10 (ten) days of receipt of this Memorandum a written statement of his defense to Enquiring Authority and also to state whether he desires to be heard in person. 3. He is also informed that an enquiry will be held only in respect of those articles of charge as are not admitted. He is therefore, specifically admit or deny each article of charge. 4. 3. He is also informed that an enquiry will be held only in respect of those articles of charge as are not admitted. He is therefore, specifically admit or deny each article of charge. 4. Shri China Ranjan Bhuniya, RM (under suspension) is further informed that if he does not submit his written statement of defense on or before the date specified in paragraph 2 above, or does not appear in person before the Inquiring Authority or otherwise fails or refuses to comply with the provisions of the rules/orders directions issued in pursuance of rule of West Bengal Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1971, the Inquiring Authority may hold the inquiry against him ex parte. 5. Attention of Shri Chitta Ranjan Bhuniyua, RM (under suspension) is invited to Rule 40 of West Bengal Forest Development Corporation Ltd. Service Rules and Financial Powers, 1974, under which no Government/Corporation Servant shall bring or attempt to bring any Political or outside influence to bear upon any Superior Authority to further his interests in respect of matters pertaining to his service under the Government/Corporation. If any representation is received on his behalf from another person in respect of any matter dealt within those proceedings, it will be presumed that Shri Chitta Ranjan Bhuniya, RM (under suspension) is aware of such a representation and that it has been made at his instance and action will be taken against him for violation of Rule 22 of the West Bengal Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1959. The receipt of this memorandum may be acknowledged. Sd/- General Manager (hq) West Bengal Forest Development Corporation Limited. 2. Challenging the aforesaid order of suspension and charge-sheet the writ petitioner came up before this Hon'ble Court and filed a writ petition which was finally disposed of by the learned Single Judge by and under judgment and order dated 22nd February, 2007. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ application. 3. Against the order of dismissal an appeal was preferred before the Hon'ble Division Bench and the Hon'ble Division Bench after considering the Rules of the West Bengal Forest Development Corporation as well as West Bengal Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971 has come to the conclusion that the order of suspension and the charge-sheet were not issued by the "competent authority". The Hon'ble Division Bench held that the disciplinary authority of the writ petitioner/appellant therein would be the "Managing Director" of the Corporation being the appointing authority. Since the order of suspension was not issued by the appointing authority and the charge-sheet was also not issued by the disciplinary authority, the order of suspension as well as the impugned charge-sheet were set aside. The Hon'ble Appeal Court has also come to the conclusion that in view of the special Rules framed for the employees of the aforementioned Forest Development Corporation the general Rules are not applicable in case of the writ petitioner. It was also held that, since the charge-sheet was not issued to the writ petitioner within the prescribed period of two months as provided in Rule 47(a) of the Service Rules, there is clear violation of Rules 47(a) of the West Bengal Forest Development Corporation Limited Service Rules, 1974. Considering the entire matter and also considering the aforementioned Rules the Division Bench passed the following order:- In the aforesaid circumstances, the charge-sheet issued to the appellant/writ petitioner cannot be sustained as the same was not issued by the competent authority and also within the prescribed time limit as specifically provided in Rule 47(a) of the Service Rules. For the reasons discussed herein above, both the order of suspension and the charge sheet issued to the appellant/writ petitioner cannot be sustained in the eye of law since the same were issued in clear violation of the provisions of the West Bengal Forest Development Corporation Limited Service Rules, 1974, Therefore, both the order of suspension and the charge-sheet issued to the appellant/writ petitioner are liable to be quashed and we hereby quash the same. In the aforesaid circumstances, the respondent authorities are directed to allow the appellant/writ petitioner to join the duties forthwith and the said appellant/writ petitioner should be deemed to be on duty during the entire period of suspension till resumption of duty in terms of this order. The respondent authorities are further directed to pay all admissible arrear dues towards the salary and other allowances after adjusting the subsistence allowance, if already paid to the said appellant/writ petitioner without any further delay but positively within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of this order. The respondent authorities are further directed to pay all admissible arrear dues towards the salary and other allowances after adjusting the subsistence allowance, if already paid to the said appellant/writ petitioner without any further delay but positively within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of this order. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this appeal stands allowed and the judgment and order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge on 22nd February, 2007 is set aside. There will be, however, no order as to costs. 4. After the order passed by Hon'ble Division Bench, the Divisional Manager of the Corporation revoked the order of suspension and the charge-sheet by and under his office order No. 59/S dated 29th October, 2007. Thereafter the writ petitioner was appointed as Range Manager attached to the Divisional Office with headquarter at Midnapur until further order. After waiting about a year the concerned Managing Director of the Corporation issued a charge-sheet on 18th July, 2008 thereby raising the same charges against the writ petitioner. 5. In reply to the charge-sheet the writ petitioner took a specific plea that the charge-sheet issued second time is wholly incompetent and invalid. The same is inflicted with the vice of prejudgment and closed mind of the concerned authorities and the purported charge-sheet has already been quashed by the Hon'ble High Court and the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6. The respondent disciplinary authorities proceeded with the charge-sheet and held the enquiry wherein the writ petitioner participated and ultimately the writ petitioner was held guilty and an order of punishment was imposed on him thereby awarding a penalty by way of reduction of his pay to a lower time scale of pay, viz. ` 3,600-7,050/- (revised) for a period of two years with the proviso that at the end of the said period the writ petitioners pay scale will be restored at the existing level and his seniority will be refixed. The impugned order of penalty imposed on the writ petitioner is the subject matter of this writ petition. 7. Mr. ` 3,600-7,050/- (revised) for a period of two years with the proviso that at the end of the said period the writ petitioners pay scale will be restored at the existing level and his seniority will be refixed. The impugned order of penalty imposed on the writ petitioner is the subject matter of this writ petition. 7. Mr. Jaharlal De, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that the Hon'ble Division Bench has quashed the order of suspension and charge-sheet on the ground of incompetency of the issuing officer not being the appointing authority and on the ground of limitation which has created a right in favour of the writ petitioner. It was submitted that the writ petitioner specifically pointed out in his reply to the charge-sheet that the charge-sheet issued second time on the selfsame charges is contrary to the order of quashing of the first charge sheet containing the same charges by the Hon'ble Division Bench. 8. Mr. De submits this objection was not considered and not decided rather the disciplinary proceeding was continued and the writ petitioner was compelled to participate in the proceeding. He submitted that the charge-sheet was hit by limitation as was held by the Hon'ble Division Bench. Therefore, there is no question of proceeding further with the selfsame charges second time. 9. Mr. De submits further that quashing of this suspension order and the charge-sheet is for all practical purposes is an end to the episode for all time to come. There is no question of proceeding further on the basis of the selfsame charges second time when it was specifically held that the impugned charge-sheet is barred by limitation as per the rules framed by the Corporation for its employees. 10. Mr. De also submits that the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench has reached its finality since it is not questioned before the higher forum and the order of the Division Bench is binding upon the parties which creates res judicata and Mr. De cited a judgment reported in 2010 (2) C.L.J. page 278 (The General Manager (PA), Allahabad Bank & ors. v. Shib Sankar Mukherjee). 11. Mr. De submits the Managing Director has no jurisdiction and/or authority to proceed further with the charge-sheet issued second time which was quashed by the Hon'ble Appeal Court. De cited a judgment reported in 2010 (2) C.L.J. page 278 (The General Manager (PA), Allahabad Bank & ors. v. Shib Sankar Mukherjee). 11. Mr. De submits the Managing Director has no jurisdiction and/or authority to proceed further with the charge-sheet issued second time which was quashed by the Hon'ble Appeal Court. He submits that the continuation of the proceeding is contrary to the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench and also illegal on the eye of law. He, therefore, submits that the impugned charge sheet issued second time on the selfsame charges and the enquiry proceeding as well as imposed penalty should be set aside. 12. Mr. Majumdar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation submits that the charge-sheet and/or the merit of the charges were never dealt with by the Hon'ble Division Bench and the Hon'ble Division Bench has held that it is the incompetency on the part of the authorities issuing suspension order and charge-sheet for which the charge-sheet as well as the suspension order was quashed. 13. Mr. Majumdar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent authorities submits that Rule 47(a) was attracted when the employees concerned were placed under suspension. But after quashing of the charge-sheet and suspension order, the concerned respondent revoked the order of suspension and charge-sheet. Therefore, the appropriate disciplinary authority has the power to issue fresh charge-sheet on the selfsame set of facts and the provision of limitation as stipulated under Rule 47(a) is not attracted and/or not applicable. 14. He further submits that the Rules framed under Rule 47(a) is mandatory, not directory. Therefore, this Hon'ble Court should take a liberal approach and take a view that the limitation in fact is not applicable in the instant case since the proceeding is started de novo without any suspension. 15. Mr. Majumdar submitted that the charges are very serious which were raised against the writ petitioner. The charges are mis-appropriation of funds and negligence on the part of the writ petitioner which took place within a period of two years starting from the year 2008 to 2010. Therefore this Court should not interfere in it. He submitted that even if there is any right accrued under the Division Bench order the writ petitioner consciously waived the same and appeared and contested before the disciplinary authority. Therefore this Court should not interfere in it. He submitted that even if there is any right accrued under the Division Bench order the writ petitioner consciously waived the same and appeared and contested before the disciplinary authority. Therefore, he is estopped from raising any question against the second charge-sheet or the disciplinary proceeding or even the penalty imposed on him for conclusion of the same. 16. Mr. Majumdar cited the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision reported in A.I.R. 1958 SC 300 paragraph 18 at page 306 (Khem Chand v. Union of India and ors.) to show the purpose of issuance of charge-sheet. He submitted that even in spite of quashing of the charge 12 sheet issued on first occasion the purpose of charge-sheet survives and the same was to be investigated and it was rightly done by the respondent, disciplinary authority and a conclusion was arrived at on their side inflicting punishment upon the delinquent employee. He submitted that the writ petition should be dismissed since there is no merit. 17. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and considered the relevant materials as well as the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench. It appears from the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench that on three grounds the Hon'ble Division Bench set aside the order of suspension and the impugned show-cause notice. The first ground is that both the impugned order of suspension and the charge-sheet were issued by the incompetent authority who is not supposed to issue the same as per the Rules framed by the Corporation which is applicable in case of the writ petitioner. The Hon'ble Division Bench also held that in this case Rule 47(a) is clearly applicable and under the Rule a period of limitation for issuance of charge-sheet was prescribed i.e. within a period of two months from the date of order of suspension the charge-sheet should be issued but in the instant case that was done beyond two months. Therefore, on the ground of limitation the chargesheet was set aside. The third ground which was considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench is that the special Rules are attracted as framed by the Corporation to its employees. Therefore, the application of general Rules are not permitted. Therefore, on the ground of limitation the chargesheet was set aside. The third ground which was considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench is that the special Rules are attracted as framed by the Corporation to its employees. Therefore, the application of general Rules are not permitted. Therefore, on that score, the Hon'ble Appeal Court held that the impugned order of suspension as well as the charge-sheet should be quashed and accordingly those were quashed. 18. In my view once the order of suspension and charge sheet issued by the respondents were quashed and set aside without granting any leave and/or opportunity to proceed farther on the selfsame allegations or on the selfsame charges the respondents authorities are estopped from proceeding with the charges by issuing a second charge-sheet on the selfsame set of facts. 19. In my view the respondents concerned have no jurisdiction to proceed with the aforementioned charge sheet issued second time which was set aside by the Hon'ble Appeal Court. In my view the order of the Appeal Court is reached its finality. There is no scope to proceed further by the respondent authorities. 20. In my view since the writ petitioner was suspended it was the obligation on the part of the respondent authorities to issue charge-sheet within the stipulated period of two months but in the instant case they have failed to do so. Therefore, the impugned charge-sheet is barred by limitation. Once the charge-sheet is barred by limitation there is no question of issuance of charge-sheet second time on the selfsame charges. There should be an end of the matter and/or finality. 21. In my view, the period of limitation as stipulated under Rule 47(a) is a mandatory one specially when the words used in that provision that Rule makes it clear that attempt should be made to frame definite charges against the employee who is placed under suspension within two months from the date of suspension at the latest. These three words "at the latest" are very significant in this respect and the period as prescribed under the Rule is specific and mandatory. 22. I also appreciate the submission of Mr. De who has also pointed out that this period may be extended with the approval of the Board in special case. This is also a point to be considered for deciding the nature of the rule whether it is mandatory or directory. 22. I also appreciate the submission of Mr. De who has also pointed out that this period may be extended with the approval of the Board in special case. This is also a point to be considered for deciding the nature of the rule whether it is mandatory or directory. In my view, the Rule under 47(a) is mandatory in nature and there is no scope for interpreting the same as directory. Thus, there is no scope to interpret the Rule otherwise. 23. In my view, the charge-sheet issued by the respondents on first occasion is hit by the rule of limitation, Therefore, they have no right to issue the charge-sheet on the second occasion which would be again beyond the limitation period. On that score also the present proceeding/disciplinary enquiry must fail and the penalty imposed by the respondent authorities are also without jurisdiction. In my view the impugned charge-sheet issued by the respondent authorities second time is not maintainable and the impugned disciplinary proceeding as well as the penalty imposed on the writ petitioner are also not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, the same are quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to give all benefits to the writ petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. The writ petition is, thus, disposed of. There would be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the appearing parties on priority basis.