Disciplinary authority cannot order de novo inquiry on same charges after first inquiry report without following Rule 9 procedure of remitting for further inquiry or providing report with disagreement reasons and considering representation.

JUDGMENT :

Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned AGP for the respondents. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.

3. The present petition is instituted for quashing and setting aside the order dated 24.12.2025 issued by respondent No.2, the Commissioner and Director of Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats, whereby a de novo departmental inquiry has been directed against the petitioner and a new Inquiry Officer has been appointed. The petitioner asserts that he possesses the degree of Bachelor of Engineering in Mechanical Engineering and has been in the service of the Urban Development Department since 18.05.2013, as Water Supply and Sanitation Engineer. At present he is posted at Municipal Council, Bhokardan, District Jalna. According to the petitioner, while he was serving in the office of the Chief Officer, Gangapur Municipal Council, certain allegations of misconduct and financial irregularities came to be raised against him in the year 2020. The matter was thereafter pursued at the departmental level. A preliminary inquiry was directed. Separate preliminary inquiry reports, along with a draft charge-sheet for departmental proceedings under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 (for short “1979 Rules”), were submitted on 16.06.2023. On that basis, a memorandum of charge dated 17.08.2023 came to be served upon the petitioner containing three charges. It is the case of the petitioner that the inquiry thereafter proceeded to its conclusion and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report to the competent authority. However, without furnishing a copy of that report to the petitioner, and without first taking a decision thereon in the manner known to law, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dated 24.12.2025 directing a de novo inquiry by appointing another Inquiry Officer. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 06.01.2026 seeking a copy of the earlier inquiry report, but the same was not supplied. Thereafter, the newly appointed Inquiry Officer issued notice dated 04.02.2026 calling upon the petitioner to appear in the fresh inquiry.

4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that once a regular departmental inquiry was lawfully conducted pursuant to the charge memorandum dated 17.08.2023, and had culminated in submission of an inquiry report, the disciplinary authority could not have simply brushed aside that report and ordered a de novo inquiry on the very same charges by appointing a new Inquiry Officer. It was urged that such a course is alien to Rule 9 of the 1979 Rules. According to the submission, Rule 9 of the 1979 Rules permits the disciplinary authority to consider the inquiry record, accept the findings, or disagree with the findings by recording reasons; and, in an appropriate case, remit the matter for further inquiry. However, it does not authorize commencement of a second inquiry from the beginning on the same charge-sheet merely because the authority is dissatisfied with the report already received. The learned Advocate further submitted that the petitioner was entitled, at the least, to be furnished the inquiry report and the tentative reasons of disagreement before any adverse step could be taken, since otherwise he would be deprived of the opportunity to meet the reasoning which weighed with the disciplinary