JUDGMENT
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.
1. Petitioner is at present working as Inspector with the 3rd respondent Bank. During 1992, petitioner was placed under suspension on the ground of dereliction of duty and negligence. The 3rd respondent appointed one P. Ramachandran, an Advocate of Kanhangd Bar as enquiry officer to inquire into the alleged misconduct. Petitioner was not found guilty. After the enquiry report the 3rd respondent by order dated October 19, 1992 ordered reinstatement of the petitioner and the period of suspension of the petitioner was ordered to be treated as on duty and he was paid salary for that period. At that time the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies was functioning as the Administrator of the Bank. More than one and half years after the closure of this disciplinary proceedings, the Executive Committee which had come into power subsequently, in a meeting held on July 29, 1994, suo motu decided to re-open the case against the petitioner. The Executive Committee decided to conduct a second enquiry against the petitioner. The Committee also decided to appoint the 4th respondent as the Enquiry Officer. Petitioner filed Ext. P8 petition before the first respondent seeking cancellation of the second enquiry. That is pending. Petitioner prays for setting aside the second enquiry.
2. I heard petitioner’s counsel, counsel for the 3rd respondent and also the Government Pleader. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in 1992. One Advocate Sri P. Ramachandran was the enquiry officer. He conducted enquiry and filed Ext. P3 report. The enquiry officer held that the charges against the petitioner were not true. The report of the enquiry officer was accepted by the disciplinary authority and the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated in service with all service benefits. Ext. P4 dated October 19, 1992 is the proceedings by which the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated in service. On August 8, 1994 petitioner was informed that the bank decided to conduct an additional enquiry with regard to the theft of gold ornaments pledged in the bank.Ext P5(a) is the copy of the resolution passed by the Executive Committee of the Bank. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed appeal before the Registrar and the Registrar by Ext. P10 order rejected the petitioner’ s appeal Petitioner contends that by Exts. P5 and P5(a) a fresh enquiry is going to be conducted against the petitioner on the basis of the same set of facts and afresh enquiry now ordered is illegal. Petitioner relies on Ext. P7, circular issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in the matter of disciplinary proceedings and enquiry of employees of co-operative institutions. Based on Ext. P7, it is contended that a second enquiry by the same disciplinary authority is illegal. However, counsel for the 3rd respondent contended that no second enquiry is ordered but an additional enquiry is ordered and that is permissible under law.
3. It may be noticed that the allegations against the petitioner is that he committed certain irregularities in the matter of theft of gold ornaments and by his negligence gave opportunity to commit theft of gold ornaments kept under the safe custody of one K. Guruva and that the petitioner violated the rules and regulations relating to grant of gold loans to customers.
4. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner not guilty and this enquiry report was accepted by the then disciplinary authority and the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated in service with all service benefits. The disciplinary authority then accepted the enquiry report and took final decision in the matter. At that time the affairs of the bank was being managed by an administrative officer. Subsequently, Board of Directors took charge and they thought that the enquiry was not properly conducted and based on Ext.P5(a) Resolution decided to conduct an additional enquiry. It is argued by the 3rd respondent that the additional enquiry is not prohibited but a fresh enquiry alone is prohibited under Ext. P7 circular. I am unable to accept this contention.
5. If an enquiry is ordered and a report is filed by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority may accept or reject the enquiry report; it would be well within the power of the disciplinary authority to order a fresh enquiry or to conduct an additional enquiry . The disciplinary author-
ity can also take a decision that the findings of the enquiry officer were not acceptable and can even hold that the enquiry officer did not consider certain relevant materials for coming to the conclusion he had reached. Under such circumstances, the disciplinary authority has to give notice to the delinquent employee and he shall be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. But, once the disciplinary authority accepted the report of the enquiry officer and took a final decision in the matter, it is not open to the disciplinary authority to order a fresh enquiry or an additional enquiry. The remedy open to the aggrieved party, if any, is to challenge the decision of the disciplinary authority. In this case, the successor in office, namely, the present Board of Directors of the Bank feels that the enquiry was not properly conducted by the enquiry officer and that disciplinary authority was not justified in accepting that report. The present Board of Directors who are successor-in-office, cannot sit in appeal against the order passed by the earlier disciplinary authority. The findings of the Registrar that under Ext. P7 only fresh enquiry is prohibited and an additional enquiry is permissible cannot be accepted as a true and correct finding. Here Ext. P5(a) resolution was passed by the Board of Directors after about One and half years of passing the final order by the disciplinary authority. The Registrar failed to exercise the power vested in him and he should have cancelled the Resolution as it was opposed to general rules relating to disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, I quash Ext. P5, P5(a) and P10 proceedings and hold that the additional enquiry now ordered by the respondents against the petitioner is illegal exercise of power hence null and void.
6. Original Petition is disposed of in the above terms.