JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Gaurav Piyush, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 3. In the present writ petition, following prayers have been made:- “For quashing the memo no.144 dated 31.01.2011 issued by the Additional Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand whereby and whereunder he has been served a fresh Inquiry Report and asked to submit his show cause on the said Inquiry Report within a period of one week; And For quashing the Inquiry Report signed on 31.12.2010 by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur wherein the petitioner has been held to have been found guilty of the charges levelled against him as the said Inquiry Report has been prepared by the present Deputy Commissioner, Pakur without having any authority to submit Inquiry report. More so as for the self-same charges previously an Inquiry report was submitted by the duly constituted Inquiry Officer as back as on 19.1.2010.” Another prayer has been made to quash the order of punishment vide Notification No.586 dated 31.03.2011. The order of punishment having been passed during the pendency of this writ petition, the same was challenged by the petitioner in I.A. No.1592 of 2011 which was allowed vide order dated 02.09.2021 and was directed to form a part of the main writ application. The punishment imposed upon the petitioner is that of deduction of five increments in the pay scale and further directed that for the period the petitioner was under suspension, the petitioner will not be entitled to any payment except subsistence allowance. Argument of the Petitioner 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the 2nd inquiry report has been prepared without authority of law as there was already an inquiry report which was duly submitted by the earlier Inquiry Officer as back as on 19.01.2010. During the pendency of the present writ petition, the 2nd show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and consequently, the order of punishment was imposed upon the petitioner, in spite of the fact that the matter was pending before this Court. The punishment order is also under challenge. 5. During the pendency of the present writ petition, the 2nd show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and consequently, the order of punishment was imposed upon the petitioner, in spite of the fact that the matter was pending before this Court. The punishment order is also under challenge. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner while advancing his argument has submitted that a criminal case was instituted being Pakur P.S. Case No.124 of 2008 dated 14.06.2008 and a charge sheet was submitted inter alia against the petitioner for offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 469, 120B of Indian Penal Code and Rule 40 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules. The petitioner was suspended vide order dated 14.09.2009 and thereafter, inquiry proceeding was initiated against the petitioner vide Memo No.1510 / M dated 03.11.2009 wherein, Mr. Manish Ranjan, I.A.S., Deputy Commissioner, Pakur was appointed as the Inquiry Officer and Sri Chintamani Mahto, Assistant Mining Officer, Pakur was appointed as the Presenting Officer. It was alleged that the petitioner while working as Assistant Mining Officer at Pakur was involved in selling transport challan, issuing transport challan even in connection with closed mines and for which the aforesaid criminal case was also instituted. 6. The learned counsel further submits that the Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report in the form of a letter bearing number 171 dated 21.04.2010 and exonerated the present petitioner. However, when the inquiry report was placed before the disciplinary authority, a direction contained in order dated 26.06.2010 was issued by the disciplinary authority for review of the inquiry itself, to examine the investigating officer of the criminal case with a direction that the Inquiry Officer should himself examine the records. 7. The learned counsel submits that the order dated 26.06.2010 asking for review of the inquiry report does not indicate any reason for differing with the report of the Inquiry Officer and no such order could have been passed. Learned counsel also submits that no show cause was issued to the petitioner before asking for review of the report of the Inquiry Officer. He submits that once an inquiry report has been submitted, the disciplinary authority can differ with the inquiry report by citing reasons or can even ask for further inquiry under certain circumstances but such action can be taken only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He submits that once an inquiry report has been submitted, the disciplinary authority can differ with the inquiry report by citing reasons or can even ask for further inquiry under certain circumstances but such action can be taken only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He also submits that the second inquiry report has been submitted by another inquiry officer and no order was ever passed for change of the inquiry officer. He also submits that the second inquiry report was also prepared without giving him any opportunity of hearing. 8. He further submits that the petitioner was surprised to receive Memo No.144 dated 31.01.2011 along with 2nd inquiry report dated 31.12.2010 wherein, the petitioner was found to be guilty of the charges levelled against him. The learned counsel also submits that the 2nd inquiry report was submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur namely Mr. Rajesh Kumar and as per the order appointing the Inquiry Officer, one Mr. Manish Ranjan was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. He further submits that the writ petition was filed at the stage of submission of the 2nd inquiry report challenging the same and the consequential order of punishment is also challenged in the present proceedings in view of the aforesaid amendment in the writ petition in I.A. No.1592 of 2011. 9. The learned counsel has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.D. Pandey and Another reported in (2002) 10 SCC 471 para 3, 4 and 5 to submit that the 2nd inquiry is ex facie bad in law. He has also submitted that the authority could have differed from the finding of the 1st inquiry, but asking for a 2nd inquiry on the same set of charges and materials on record, is not permissible in law. 10. The learned counsel has also referred to the following judgments: (i) The judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nand Kumar Verma Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others reported in (2012) 3 SCC 580 para 24. (ii) Vijay Shankar Pandey Vs. Union of India and Anr. reported in (2014) 10 SCC 589 para 24 to 26 and 32. (iii) A judgment passed by this Court in the case of Shiva Chandra Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others reported in (2012) 3 SCC 580 para 24. (ii) Vijay Shankar Pandey Vs. Union of India and Anr. reported in (2014) 10 SCC 589 para 24 to 26 and 32. (iii) A judgment passed by this Court in the case of Shiva Chandra Prasad Vs. The State of Jharkhand and others in W.P.S. No.1935 of 2013 decided on 17.01.2014 para 3 and 7 reported in (2014) SCC Online Jhar 101 and; (iv) In the case of Madhurendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and others in W.P.(S). No.2053 of 2018 decided on 11.12.2019 reported in 2019 SCC Online Jhar 2964 para 9 onwards. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically submitted that before taking a decision for conducting another inquiry, opportunity of hearing was required to be given to the petitioner and the law is well settled that in case of difference of opinion with the Inquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority after assigning reason, can order for a further inquiry and not for a fresh inquiry. The learned counsel has submitted that in view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, the 2nd inquiry on the same set of charges and facts is wholly impermissible in law and accordingly, the consequential order of punishment is also wholly illegal. The learned counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, 2nd inquiry report and the consequential order are fit to be set aside. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the inquiry report was submitted vide letter no.171 dated 21.04.2010 and the Inquiry Officer, after considering the submission of the Presenting Officer as contained in Annexure – 6, opined that the charges against the petitioner is not proved and thereafter, the order dated 26.06.2010 was issued by the Disciplinary Authority directing the Inquiry Officer to examine the Investigating Officer of the case and also consider the records himself. Learned counsel has also submitted that initially Manish Ranjan was appointed as Inquiry Officer and the subsequent inquiry report was submitted by another officer namely Rakesh Kumar, who was the then Deputy Commissioner. Argument of the State 13. Learned counsel has also submitted that initially Manish Ranjan was appointed as Inquiry Officer and the subsequent inquiry report was submitted by another officer namely Rakesh Kumar, who was the then Deputy Commissioner. Argument of the State 13. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the petitioner had earlier moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4776 of 2009 which was decided on 08.09.2010 and the writ petition was disposed of directing the respondent no.2 Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi to pass a final order after considering the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. The learned counsel submits that on 08.09.2010, when the writ petition was disposed of, the order for review of the inquiry was already passed which is dated 26.06.2010 and this fact was brought to the notice of the writ court. He has referred to para 15 of the counter-affidavit and has submitted that the aforesaid development regarding direction to review the inquiry report was brought before this Court in W.P.S. No.4776 of 2009 vide oath no.7241 dated 06.09.2010 before passing the order dated 08.09.2010, but the petitioner neither choose to challenge the order dated 26.06.2010 directing review of the inquiry in the earlier writ petition nor has challenged the same in the present writ petition. 14. Learned counsel has further submitted that the reason for conducting the review of the inquiry is on account of the fact that the Disciplinary Authority on examination of the inquiry report found that some material facts were not considered and statement of some key witnesses were not taken while conducting inquiry and therefore, order dated 26.06.2010 was passed to review the inquiry report and complete the inquiry and re-submit the same at the earliest. Learned counsel has also referred to the order contained in Memo No.3064 dated 23.11.2010 to submit that the reason for review of the inquiry is apparent from the said document. The learned counsel submits that in view of the fact that there was sufficient ground for directing review of the inquiry report, the 2nd inquiry report, which has been challenged by the petitioner, is valid in the eyes of law. The learned counsel submits that in view of the fact that there was sufficient ground for directing review of the inquiry report, the 2nd inquiry report, which has been challenged by the petitioner, is valid in the eyes of law. He has also submitted that the petitioner was issued the 2nd show cause notice and ultimately, the order of punishment has been passed. 15. However, during the course of argument, it is not in dispute that no show cause was issued to the petitioner prior to directing for review of the inquiry. 16. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur was the Inquiry Officer by designation and therefore, being the successor in office to that of Mr. Manish Ranjan (the previous Inquiry Officer), has submitted the subsequent inquiry report and accordingly, there is no illegality in submission of inquiry report by the successor in office. 17. Learned counsel has also referred to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raju Jacob Vs. Kunj Behari Mishra reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 and has referred to para 17 and 18 of the said judgment to submit that it has been held that when the inquiry report is in favour of the delinquent officer, but the disciplinary authority proposes to differ with such conclusion, then the authority which is deciding against the delinquent officer must give him an opportunity of being heard and by referring to this judgment, he submits that merely on the ground which has been urged by the petitioner, the punishment order cannot be set aside and at best it can be remanded to the authority for fresh consideration. Findings of this Court 18. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the petitioner is aggrieved by the Memo No.144 dated 31.01.2011 issued by the Additional Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand whereby he has been served with a fresh/second inquiry report asking him to show cause on the basis of the such inquiry report within a period of one week. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the subsequent order passed during the pendency of this case, whereby the petitioner has been imposed punishment. 19. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the subsequent order passed during the pendency of this case, whereby the petitioner has been imposed punishment. 19. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was placed under suspension pursuant to one F.I.R and charge sheet was also submitted against the petitioner in the said case on 14.06.2008 and thereafter the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 14.09.2009. However, the suspension of the petitioner was revoked vide order dated 15.01.2011. Vide order dated 03.11.2009, Mr. Manish Ranjan, the then Deputy Commissioner, Pakur was appointed as the Conducting Officer and the Assistant Mining Officer was the presenting officer for conducting departmental inquiry against the petitioner and memo of charge was also served upon the petitioner. 20. The then Deputy Commissioner, Pakur-cum-Conducting Officer submitted his inquiry report vide letter no.171 dated 21.04.2010 (Annexure – 11) by stating that the charges against the petitioner does not appear to be proved in view of the point wise submissions made by the Presenting Officer. Pursuant to letter no. 171 dated 21.04.2010, the Disciplinary Authority issued letter dated 26.06.2010 asking the Inquiry Officer to examine the Investigating Officer of the case and to himself examine the records. 21. Although it is the specific case of the petitioner that a fresh inquiry has been directed to be done vide order dated 26.06.2010, but when order dated 26.06.2010 is read with letter no.171 dated 21.04.2010, it appears that the Disciplinary Authority found that some key persons like the I.O of the criminal case was not examined and had directed the inquiry officer for examination of the I.O. of the case and to see the records himself. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 26.06.2010 is essential for further inquiry and not for fresh inquiry as some of the key witnesses i.e I.O. of the criminal case was not examined. 22. From the records of this case and particularly from the pleadings of the petitioner in the main writ petition as well as interlocutory application, it appears that no notice was issued to the petitioner before directing further inquiry in the matter vide order dated 26.06.2010. 23. This Court is of the considered view that order dated 26.06.2010 is apparently an order for further inquiry and not an order for conducting de novo or fresh inquiry. 23. This Court is of the considered view that order dated 26.06.2010 is apparently an order for further inquiry and not an order for conducting de novo or fresh inquiry. It is the specific case of the petitioner that even if this letter dated 26.06.2010 is treated as an order of further inquiry, an opportunity of hearing ought to have been given to the petitioner as the same has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner in view of the fact that the inquiry report was already submitted in favour of the petitioner vide letter no.171 dated 21.04.2010 holding that no case was proved against the petitioner. 24. The learned counsel for the State has referred to order passed in the earlier round of writ petition in W.P.S. No.4776 of 2009 dated 08.09.2010 and has also submitted that the letter dated 26.06.2010 was brought on record in W.P.S. No.4776 of 2009 and accordingly, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not aware about the aforesaid letter dated 26.06.2010 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, but during the course of argument, he could not point out any document from record or any pleading that the petitioner was ever issued any show cause prior to issuance of direction for further inquiry vide letter dated 26.06.2010. This Court is of the considered view that merely because the letter dated 26.06.2010 for further inquiry was brought on record by the respondents in the earlier round of litigation in W.P.S. No.4776 of 2009, the same does not dispense with the requirement of issuance of a show cause to the petitioner prior to directing further inquiry when the inquiry report submitted vide letter no.171 dated 21.04.2010 was in favour of the petitioner. Although the petitioner has not specifically prayed for quashing the order dated 26.06.2010 directing review of the inquiry but the entire decision-making process which culminated in the subsequent inquiry report and order of punishment has been challenged in the present writ petition and accordingly, this court is of considered view that there is no legal impediment in examining the legality and validity of the order dated 26.06.2010. The parties have also advanced their arguments on the point of validity of the order dated 26.06.2010. 25. The parties have also advanced their arguments on the point of validity of the order dated 26.06.2010. 25. In view of the aforesaid finding, the solitary point which is to be further decided in the present case is as to whether natural justice is required to be followed in case further inquiry is directed after submission of the inquiry report in favour of the petitioner. 26. In the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2002) 10 SCC 471 (supra), it has been held that the disciplinary authority cannot direct fresh inquiry on the same set of charges. However, as already held above, on perusal of the order dated 26.06.2010, it appears to be an order for further inquiry and not for fresh inquiry. 27. In the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1971 (2) SCC 102 (K.R. Deb Vs. The Collector of Central Excise Shillong), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while interpreting Rule 15 of the Classification and Control Rules has held that the said rule only provides for one inquiry, but it may be possible, if in a particular case, there has been no proper inquiry 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. It has also been held that there was 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 had enough power to reconsider the evidence itself and come to its own conclusion under Rule 9. Similar view has been taken by this Court in W.P.(S). No.1935 of 2013 decided on 17.01.2014 wherein, the aforesaid judgment has been followed. In another judgment passed by this Court reported in 2019 SCC Online Jhar 2964 (supra), this Court while quashing the order for fresh inquiry has cited three reasons in para 14 as follows: “14. Similar view has been taken by this Court in W.P.(S). No.1935 of 2013 decided on 17.01.2014 wherein, the aforesaid judgment has been followed. In another judgment passed by this Court reported in 2019 SCC Online Jhar 2964 (supra), this Court while quashing the order for fresh inquiry has cited three reasons in para 14 as follows: “14. As a sequel to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, judicial pronouncements, the order no.806 dated 18.01.2017, issued by the Department of Water Resources, Government of Jharkhand, is hereby quashed and set aside, for the following facts and reasons: - I) There was no occasion for conducting a de novo and second enquiry as without assigning any reason for differing with the first enquiry report, the disciplinary authority had ordered for second enquiry, which is impermissible in the eyes of law, as after differing with enquiry report and following the principle of natural justice, a further enquiry could have been initiated and not a fresh enquiry. II) There was no loss to the State Exchequer neither the charges have been proved in the enquiry report regarding loss to the State Exchequer. III) There has been complete violation of principle of audi alteram partem.” 28. This Court in the said judgment has held that after differing with the inquiry report and following the principles of natural justice, a further inquiry could have been initiated but not fresh inquiry. 29. In the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2014) 10 SCC 589 (supra) which has followed the judgment passed in the case of K.R. Deb (supra) and it has been held in para 26 that the normal rule is that there can be only one inquiry. However, the Court has also recognized the possibility of a further inquiry in certain circumstances, as enumerated in the case of K.R. Deb (supra). The decision, however, makes it clear that the fact that the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer is not acceptable to the Disciplinary Authority is not a ground for completely setting aside the inquiry report and ordering a second inquiry. 30. The decision, however, makes it clear that the fact that the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer is not acceptable to the Disciplinary Authority is not a ground for completely setting aside the inquiry report and ordering a second inquiry. 30. In the present case, admittedly, after conducting the 1st inquiry, the report was submitted in favour of the petitioner vide letter no.171 dated 21.04.2010, but vide order dated 26.06.2010, a further inquiry was directed by the Disciplinary Authority directing examination of the witness namely, the I.O of the criminal case but while issuing letter dated 26.06.2010, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner. 31. This Court is of the considered view that once an inquiry report is submitted by the Inquiry Officer, which is in favour of the delinquent, a right crystalizes in favour of the delinquent for consideration of his case on the basis of the inquiry report and if the Disciplinary Authority chooses to differ with the inquiry report or chooses to conduct further inquiry for the purposes of examining further witnesses, then under both the circumstances, the principles of natural justice is required to be followed. The respondents have failed to show before this Court that the required principle of natural justice was followed prior to issuance of direction for further inquiry vide order dated 26.06.2010. 32. It has also been mentioned by the petitioner in the writ petition as well as the interlocutory application that the petitioner was straightaway served with the subsequent inquiry report dated 31.12.2010 (Annexure – 9) contained in Memo dated 31.01.2011 which has been submitted by the successor in office of the original Inquiry Officer. This Court also finds that the original Inquiry Officer Mr. Manish Ranjan, was appointed by name and his designation was also mentioned in order dated 03.11.2009, but the subsequent report has been filed by his successor in office namely Mr. Rajesh Kumar. Thus, the person who had submitted the initial inquiry report was a different person from the one who had submitted the subsequent inquiry report, although, admittedly, there has been no order regarding change of the Inquiry Officer. Upon perusal of Annexure – 4, the Inquiry Officer, Mr. Rajesh Kumar. Thus, the person who had submitted the initial inquiry report was a different person from the one who had submitted the subsequent inquiry report, although, admittedly, there has been no order regarding change of the Inquiry Officer. Upon perusal of Annexure – 4, the Inquiry Officer, Mr. Manish Ranjan was appointed by name and accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that his successor in office cannot automatically become the Inquiry Officer of the case in absence of any such order appointing the successor in office to conduct further/subsequent inquiry. 33. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter and particularly the fact that no opportunity was granted to the petitioner prior to direction for further inquiry by examining further witnesses as directed in order dated 26.06.2010, the order dated 26.06.2010 as well as the subsequent inquiry report cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the order dated 26.06.2010 as well as the subsequent inquiry report dated 31.12.2010 (Annexure – 9) contained in Memo dated 31.01.2011, are set aside only on account of violation of principles of natural justice. Consequently, order of punishment of the petitioner passed by the Disciplinary Authority vide Notification No.586 dated 31.03.2011 (Annexure-10), which has been challenged by way of interlocutory application, is also set aside. 34. The matter is relegated to the stage of submission of inquiry report to the disciplinary authority by the enquiry officer vide letter no.171 dated 21.04.2010. It will be open to the Disciplinary Authority either to accept the inquiry report or to differ with the enquiry report or to take a decision for further inquiry requiring further examination of material/witnesses. However, any decision to differ from the enquiry report/decision to conduct further enquiry is required to be taken after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and by passing a speaking order citing reasons for such decision. 35. The disciplinary proceeding is directed to be taken to a logical end within a period of 1 (one) year from today and the final order should also deal with the consequential relief, if any, in accordance with law. 36. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the phone number of the petitioner is 9162856829 and submits that the petitioner may be contacted by the office of Disciplinary Authority for the purposes of service of notice in terms of the aforesaid observation/direction. 36. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the phone number of the petitioner is 9162856829 and submits that the petitioner may be contacted by the office of Disciplinary Authority for the purposes of service of notice in terms of the aforesaid observation/direction. He also submits that the petitioner would further not change his phone number for a period of one year from today. 37. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations/directions. 38. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed. 39. Office is directed to forward a soft copy of this order to the learned counsel for the parties.