VERMA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, who was working in Rajasthan State Electricity Board now Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter called `nigam') was charged sheeted on 19. 6. 92 under Regulation No. 7 of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1962 (hereinafter called `regulations') levelling the allegations of misconduct under Regulation 28 (f) & 28 (k) relating to the period of 1986-88, when the petitioner was posted as Asstt. Engineer (O&m), R. S. E. B. , Chechat, Ramganjmandi. THE charges were denied. THE Enquiry Officer was appointed vide order dated 18. 9. 93 (Annex. 4 ). THE petitioner was exonerated by the Enquiry Officer.
(2.) ON receipt of the Enquiry Report exonerating the petitioner, the Secretary of the Nigam vide order dated 4. 5. 98 (Annex. 10) was of the opinion that the prosecution had not cared to produce the relevant documents and witnesses and for want of the relevant evidence none of the charges had been proved. The Secretary observed that even though the petitioner had committed misconduct, but nothing had been proved. The case was remanded back to Enquiry Officer to re-enquire into the matter with the direction that the allegations as levelled be enquired into once for all and submit the findings. The authority had ordered in a way to hold denovo enquiry, which according to the petitioner was not permissible under the law. The petitioner has come up in the writ petition for quashing the order dated 4. 5. 98 (Annex. 10 ). The petitioner was denied the promotion because of the pendency of the enquiry, and, therefore, the petitioner has also prayed that after quashing the impugned order, he be given all promotions, to which he was denied. In the written statement filed by respondent it is stated that the prosecution was not able to produce the evidence before the Enquiry Officer, and, therefore, the charges could not be proved. It is further stated that the Disciplinary Authority by directing the Enquiry Officer and prosecution for re-holding the enquiry by producing the documents has not committed any error of law. Counsel for petitioner submits that if the prosecution had failed to prove any of the charge, the authority concerned could not have ordered for re-enquiry into the matter by giving direction to Enquiry Officer. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the order Annexure-10 shows that the competent authority is already biased by observing that no proper enquiry has been conducted as a result of which no allegation has been proved. It is further mentioned in Annexure-10 that though the petitioner had committed serious misconduct and has put the Nigam to huge financial loss and, therefore, it amounts to pre- determination of the guilt. The petitioner is governed by the R. S. E. B. Employees (Classification, Control & Appeal) Regulations, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations ).
(3.) REGULATION 7 (vii) provides that at the conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Authority shall prepare a report of the inquiry, recording its findings on each of the charges together with the reasons, therefor, and shall send the report to the Disciplinary Authority etc. Sub-Rule (viii) provides that the Disciplinary Authority shall consider the record of the inquiry and record its findings on each charges. Sub-rule (ix) provides that if the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that any of the penalties to the imposed, it shall pass orders accordingly. Sub-Clauses (vii), (viii) and (ix) of REGULATION 7 are reproduced as under:- "7 (vii)- At the conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiring Authority shall prepare a report of the inquiry recording its findings on each of the charges together with the reasons therefor and shall send the report to the Disciplinary Authority, alongwith the record of inquiry, consisting of statement of charges and statement of allegations given to the employee, his written defence, evidence, oral and documentary, in the course of enquiry. (viii) The Disciplinary Authority shall consider the record of the inquiry and record its findings on each charges. (ix) If the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified at numbers (a) to (d) in REGULATION-5, should be imposed, it shall pass orders accordingly and if the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on the charge, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified at serial numbers (e) to (h) should be imposed, it shall make an order imposing such penalty and it shall not be necessary to give the employee any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed. " Even though there is no provision to the effect that if the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the enquiry report, it can so state by giving reasons. But that is not the situation in the present case. The Disciplinary Authority has ordered the re- enquiry of the case. There is no such provision in the regulations authorising the Disciplinary Authority to order any denovo or re-enquiry and, therefore, the counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the judgment in the case of K. R. Deb vs. The Collector of Central Excise (1) submits that the impugned order is bad in law. In the case of K. R. Deb (supra) which was a case under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, it was held that the rule provides only for one enquiry and it may be possible that if in a particular case there has been no proper enquiry because some serious defect has crept in the enquiry or some important witnesses were not available at the time of enquiry and were not examined, the Disciplinary Authority may ask the enquiry officer to record further evidence, but there was no provision in the rule for completely setting aside the previous enquiry on the ground that the report of the enquiry officer does not appeal to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority has enough powers to reconsider the evidence itself and come to its own conclusion. In my opinion, the case of K. R. Deb (supra) is fully applicable in the present case. ;