JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, it transpires that a departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner Dinesh Singh Kashyap, who is posted as a Stenographer in the State Public Services Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Tribunal’) to the effect that during the subsistence of his earlier marriage with Ms. Renu Devi (a stenographer in the office of same Tribunal) on 28.9.2009, he entered into the wedlock with another woman, namely, Ms. Anju Kashyap on 15.04.2012. When this fact came in the notice of Ms. Anju Kashyap, she made a complaint to the Chairman of the Tribunal on 24.9.2012, whereon the departmental enquiry was set up. During the course of enquiry, Ms. Anju Kashyap moved an application on 16.11.2012 thereby not pressing her complaint and requesting for dropping of such enquiry. So, the Enquiry Officer (Member of the Tribunal) submitted his report on 10.10.2013 stating all the facts, primarily, that the complainant does not want to proceed with the complaint, so, it had become infructuous. 2. Even after submission of such enquiry report, no decision was taken by the Chairman of the Tribunal, so the petitioner filed WPSS No.357 of 2015 praying, in person, that the directions be issued to the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner within such time, as this Court may deem fit. On such prayer made in the open Court, the petition was disposed of with the direction that the disciplinary proceeding pending against the petitioner shall be concluded within 90 days. 3. Having got this mandate in the writ petition, the Chairman of the Tribunal, vide order No.179 dated 8.5.2015, held as under: - “The Inquiry Officer had not given any finding about the fact as to whether the charge, as alleged, has been proved or not. In several cases it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the departmental inquiry as well as the criminal and civil proceedings before the competent Court of Law can proceed simultaneously but if both the proceedings are taken up simultaneously, in that case the inquiry officer has to record a finding as to whether the charge is proved by the evidence or not. He has to record his independent finding in the departmental inquiry. He has to record his independent finding in the departmental inquiry. The inquiry officer has not reached any finding of the fact as to whether the delinquent has performed the second marriage with Ms. Anju Devi during the subsistence of marriage with Ms. Renu Devi or not. In view of the above, I remit the inquiry to the Inquiry Officer Hon’ble Sri V.K. Maheshwari, Vice Chairman (Judl.) to record the finding for the above effect within 25 days. If he desires to take any fresh evidence within the permissible limits of law, he can record the evidence and recall the witnesses for evidence. Let the record be remitted to the inquiry officer. Sri Dinesh Kashyap will appear before the Inquiry Officer on 15.05.2015. Let the copy of the order be given to Sri Dinesh Kashyap.” 4. Having such remittance, the Enquiry Officer examined the complainant giving opportunity for cross-examination as well and has held that it is abundantly clear that Sri Dinesh Singh Kashyap had solemnized the second marriage with Ms. Anju Kashyap on 15.4.2012 at Dehradun during subsistence of his first marriage with Ms. Renu Devi solemnized on 28.9.2009. On the above facts, a show cause notice has now been issued to the petitioner on 23.6.2015 by the Chairman of the Tribunal rendering him an opportunity to explain as to why the major penalty, provided under the Rules, be not inflicted on him. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there was no occasion for the enquiry officer to give an opinion contrary to what was revealed at the last portion of the earlier enquiry report dated 10.10.2013. This contention is wholly unsubstantial and thus, rejected for the reason that the earlier enquiry report was, in fact, no report. Rather, it was the outturn of not pressing the complaint by its maker, with the result, she was even not examined by the Officer. Why she was not inclined to press her complaint, one need not to go far in search of such reasons and the same can be discerned. Further, there was no such observation in the earlier report as to whether the non-inclination to press the complaint was voluntary or under some coercion or illicit consideration etc. Why she was not inclined to press her complaint, one need not to go far in search of such reasons and the same can be discerned. Further, there was no such observation in the earlier report as to whether the non-inclination to press the complaint was voluntary or under some coercion or illicit consideration etc. Therefore, the Chairman of the Tribunal rightly held that the earlier enquiry report was, in fact, no enquiry and he considered it just and proper to remit the enquiry for recording the statement of complainant with all norms and then to conclude the matter, as a result whereof, the enquiry officer examined the complainant, who was cross-examined at length by the petitioner, but nothing could come out to negate the charges against him. So, being satisfied with the findings of the enquiry officer, the Chairman of the Tribunal has issued show cause notice to the petitioner, as above. 6. I feel that there is no reason to interfere with the said show cause notice issued to the petitioner. The petition is devoid of any merit and is dismissed at the threshold.