Appeal allowed, judgment set aside. Impugned order found harassing. Respondents to pay costs.

The appeal was allowed, and the judgment under appeal was set aside. The court found the impugned order to be untenable and harassing. The respondents were ordered to pay costs to the appellant, quantified at Rs. 5,00,000. The court also suggested that the respondents could identify those responsible for the unwholesome action against the appellant and recover the amounts if they have the political will.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of invoking Rule 8(3) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969.
2. Validity of the rejection of the Enquiry Officer's report.
3. Applicability of specific rules under the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968.
4. Whether a second inquiry is permissible under the circumstances.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of invoking Rule 8(3) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969:
The appellant challenged the invocation of Rule 8(3) of the Discipline Rules, arguing that it is illegal for the State to resort to the provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 after having appointed an Enquiry Officer under the Discipline Rules. The court observed that Rule 8(3) allows for the appointment of a Board as an Inquiring Authority, which can consist of multiple members. The court clarified that the language of Rule 8(2) is broad enough to enable the disciplinary authority to appoint either a single member or a multi-member Board to inquire into the misconduct of a delinquent officer. The court found no basis for the conclusion that the impugned order constituted a Board under the provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850.

2. Validity of the rejection of the Enquiry Officer's report:
The Enquiry Officer had exonerated the appellant of all charges, but the State rejected the report on the grounds that it was cursory and violated the mandate of Rules 8(15), 8(16), 8(20), and 8(24) of the Discipline Rules. The court found these grounds to be untenable. The court noted that the appellant admitted the factual correctness of the allegations, hence there were no facts to be investigated. The court also found that the length and elegance of the report should not affect its legality if the conclusions were justified. The court further observed that the State did not provide specific violations of the mentioned rules and that these rules did not apply since the appellant did not contest the factual allegations.

3. Applicability of specific rules under the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968:
The charges against the appellant were based on alleged violations of Rules 3(1), 7, 8(1), and 17 of the Conduct Rules. The court examined each rule in detail:
- Rule 17: The court found no application of this rule as it pertains to vindicating official acts, which was not the content of the charges.
- Rule 7: The court concluded that allegations of maladministration do not fall within the ambit of this rule, which prohibits criticism of government policies.
- Rule 8: The court noted that this rule prohibits giving evidence in inquiries without prior sanction, but it does not apply to judicial inquiries. The court emphasized that a writ petition filed in public interest does not constitute an inquiry under Rule 8.
- Rule 3(1): The court found that filing a writ petition alleging government malfeasance does not amount to failure to maintain integrity or devotion to duty.

4. Whether a second inquiry is permissible under the circumstances:
The court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in K.R. Deb v. The Collector of Central Excise, Shillong, which held that there can be only one inquiry unless there are specific circumstances justifying a further inquiry. The court found that the reasons given by the State for ordering a fresh inquiry were untenable. The court emphasized that dissatisfaction with the Enquiry Officer's report is not a valid ground for ordering a second inquiry. The court concluded that the impugned order was calculated to harass the appellant and suppress any probe into allegations of maladministration.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the judgment under appeal was set aside. The court found the impugned order to be untenable and harassing. The respondents were ordered to pay costs to the appellant, quantified at Rs. 5,00,000. The court also suggested that the respondents could identify those responsible for the unwholesome action against the appellant and recover the amounts if they have the political will.

---