ORDER
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.
1. This application has been preferred by petitioner against the office order No. PM (A) OE/Disc. Case/T, Pd./99/ 581-86 dated 11.1.2000 (Annexure-7) issued by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of M/s. CCL whereby and whereunder one R.N. Singh, CPM (P&IR) has been appointed as Enquiry Officer. The petitioner has also challenged the consequential office order No. 4804, dated 23.10.2000 whereby Mr. R.N. Singh. Enquiry Officer asked the petitioner to appear in the departmental enquiry.
2. As the case can be disposed of an a short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, claim and counter claim of the parties, except the relevant one.
3. The petitioner was proceeded departmentally wherein one Sri A.N. Singh. CGM (P&P) was appointed as enquiry officer. He conducted enquiry and submitted a report. It was not accepted by the Chairmancum-Managing Director of M/s. CCL on the ground that the report submitted by Sri A.N. Singh was vague having concluded without any finding whether the charges levelled against the petitioner stood proved or not. In the background aforesaid, the impugned order on 11.1.2000 was issued by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director.
4. In the counter affidavit, same plea taken by the respondents. It is stated that the first enquiry officer, Sri A.N. Singh, CGM (P & P) though in his report accepted that the petitioner was taken in custody in connection with some police case but he held that the petitioner may have felt embarrassment to state it which is a natural phenomenon, though the petitioner later 011 admitted this fact openly. In spite of the aforesaid fact the first enquiry officer, Sri A.N. Singh recommended not to punish the petitioner for such concealment of fact. The report of enquiry officer being based on conjecture, surmises and completely based on imagination, is stated to have not been accepted by the Disciplinary Authority.
5. Similar issue fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of K.R. Deb v. Collector, Central Excise, Shillong, reported in AIR 1971 SC 1447. In the said case, the Court held that in case of some defect in the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority can direct the enquiry officer to conduct further enquiry in respect of that matter but it cannot direct a fresh enquiry to be conducted by some other officer. .
6. Now. it is a settled law that it is open to a Disciplinary Authority to disagree or differ with the finding of the enquiry officer but in such case, it will give ground of difference and after notice to the charged employee, the Disciplinary Authority may pass appropriate order in accordance with law. However, as per decision of the Supreme Court, it is not open to Disciplinary Authority to appoint another enquiry officer to conduct fresh enquiry.
7. In the facts and circumstances, as it was not open to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct a fresh enquiry on the ground that it differed with the finding of the enquiry officer, the impugned order dated 11.1.2000 and consequential office order dated 21/23.10.2000 (Annexure-7 & 8) are set aside.
8. The case is remitted to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of M/s. CCL to proceed, in accordance with law.
9. The writ petition stands disposed of, with the aforesaid observations.