Second inquiry on same material is impermissible when a disciplinary remand follows exoneration without any inquiry defect.

A disciplinary authority cannot invoke Rule 25 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 to order a further inquiry on the same material after the inquiry authority has exonerated the employee, unless there is a demonstrated defect in the first inquiry, denial of opportunity, or perversity in the findings. Where the remit is made after the authority independently records adverse findings on the existing record, the process amounts to a second inquiry on the same charges and is impermissible. On these facts, the remit was invalid, though the dismissal order itself was not interfered with.

---

---

Issues: Whether the disciplinary authority could remit the matter for further inquiry under Rule 25 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 on the same material after the inquiry authority had found none of the charges proved, or whether the course adopted amounted to an impermissible second inquiry.

Analysis: The earlier inquiry report had exonerated the employee, and the disciplinary authority thereafter examined the record and recorded specific findings on the charges, concluding that several charges could be proved on the existing material. The remit for further inquiry was therefore not based on any demonstrated defect in the first inquiry, any failure of opportunity to lead evidence, or any finding that the earlier inquiry was perverse. On the facts, the remand was treated as a fresh round of inquiry on the same charges and same material, which would permit repeated inquiries until the result matched the disciplinary authority's view. Such a course was held to be impermissible.

Conclusion: The remit ordered by the disciplinary authority was invalid as it amounted to a second inquiry rather than a lawful further inquiry, and the order of dismissal could not be interfered with.

---