Further investigation after final report rejected where no new material, no reasons, and the order was non-speaking.

A further investigation order after acceptance of a final report was held unsustainable where the request was vague, unsupported by any new material, and addressed matters already examined in the earlier inquiry. The court noted that the prior vigilance report did not recommend further investigation but referred the matter for departmental action, and the trial court gave no reasons showing why further investigation was necessary. A non-speaking order permitting further investigation in these circumstances was contrary to law and amounted to an abuse of process. The order granting liberty to investigate further was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order granting liberty to the prosecution to conduct further investigation after acceptance of the final report was sustainable in law.

Analysis: The application for further investigation was founded on an earlier vigilance report, but that report did not recommend further investigation and instead referred the matter for departmental action. The request placed before the trial court was found to be vague, unsupported by any new material, and directed to matters already examined in the earlier investigation. The impugned order was also non-speaking and did not disclose any reasons showing why further investigation was necessary. In these circumstances, the order was held to be contrary to law and to amount to an abuse of process.

Conclusion: The order granting liberty for further investigation was not justified and was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Further investigation after acceptance of a final report cannot be ordered on a vague request without new material or a reasoned basis showing necessity, and a non-speaking order permitting such investigation is legally unsustainable.

---