NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

The petitioner is questioning the order dated October 5, 2015, December 18, 2015 and January 7, 2016 passed by respondent No.3 whereby the report of the Enquiry Officer exonerating the petitioner from the charges levelled against him came to be rejected with further order of denovo inquiry against the petitioner.

2. The facts necessary for deciding the present petition are as under :

After having joined the services with the respondent board in August, 1994, the petitioner was put into charge of Handmade Paper Institute, Pune in the capacity of Director in 2005. Thereafter, the petitioner was posted as a Project Director, District Office, Pune from 2007 to 2010 and since June, 2012 was posted as District Village Industry Officer at Thane District Office.

3. Having noticed that the petitioner has indulged into certain illegalities during his services as Director, Handmade Paper Institute, Pune, pursuant to the provisions of Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 ('the Rules of 1979' for short), the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet. Amongst other charges levelled against the petitioner are :

(a) Irregularities in drawing travel expenses;

(b) Not maintaining proper travel record while using the department vehicles;

(c) Claiming excess transportation expenses;

(d) Intentionally taking such decisions to cause financial losses to the board;

(e) drawing salary of private individuals;

(f) Drawing overtime to which petitioner was lawfully not entitled to.

4. Respondent No.2 Board vide resolution, has adopted the provisions of “the Rules of 1979”. The respondents accordingly appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct inquiry. The Enquiry Officer after completing his inquiry submitted his report thereby exonerating the petitioner of all the charges vide report dated October 10, 2014.

5. The Disciplinary Authority vide the impugned order noticed that the Enquiry Officer has conducted the inquiry in contravention of Rules 6.17 to 6.21 of the Departmental Enquiry Rule Book, 1991, rejected the report of the Enquiry Officer and ordered fresh inquiry pursuant to clause 7.3 of the Departmental Enquiry Rule Book as is apparent from the impugned order dated October 10, 2015. As a consequence of the aforesaid order, a fresh Enquiry Officer was appointed against the petitioner vide order dated December 18, 2015 and January 7, 2016. The petitioner was served with a notice of hearing by the newly appointed Enquiry Officer. All these three orders dated October 5, 2015, December 18, 2015 and January 7, 2016 are impugned in the present petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that once the Enquiry Officer has submitted inquiry report in favour of the petitioner, exonerating him of all the charges, option with the respondents is to accept the said report and absolve the petitioner of all the charges. He would submit that in case if the respondent Nos.2 and 3 intend to reject the same, it should have preceded with a show cause notice to the petitioner for disagreement with the report of the Enquiry Officer. According to him, neither any separate notice nor opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner before issuance of the impugned orders. According to him, the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed and set aside with direction to the respondents to pass an order absolving the petitioner of all charges.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel, Mr. Rohit P. Sakhdeo, for respondent Nos.2 and 3 opposed the claim of the petitioner and would urge that what has been ordered by the respondents is denovo inquiry. According to him, there is no necessity to issue notice while ordering denovo inquiry as the petitioner will be given opportunity of hearing during the inquiry. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any prejudice, in absence of any notice to him. He would then urge that there is no statutory right in favour of the petitioner which prompts o