( 1 ) ADMIT. Heard the learned Senior Advocate Mr. P. M. Thakkar and learned Advocate Mrs. Sangita N. Pahwa for the appellant and learned Advocate Mr. K. M. Patel for the respondent.

( 2 ) WHAT is the relevant rule, provision, and interpretation, in the event of the disciplinary authority directing further action of FRESH or FURTHER ENQUIRY, upon the strength of the report of the enquiry officer, is the main heart and the hub of the entire Letters Patent Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal on hand. A special reference to the provisions of Rule 10 (1) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 (for short `the Rules) point to the interpretation made by the respondent - Gujarat State Financial Corporation (for short "gsfc" ). The disciplinary authority, upon consideration and evaluation of the enquiry report made after completion and conclusion of regular departmental enquiry in respect of alleged serious irregularities of Financial Services Division at the Head Office of the Corporation against the appellant Mr. D. R. Patel, General Manager-I, directed for fresh regular departmental enquiry i. e. de novo enquiry on the charges levelled in the charge-sheet. The above order, on being questioned in this Court at the instance of the appellant-delinquent by way of Special Civil Application No. 10078 of 2002, upon judicial scrutiny, was confirmed by the learned Single Judge, which prompted the delinquent to invoke the powers of clause 15 of the Letters Patent in this Letters Patent Appeal challenging the order of learned Single Judge dated 26-12-2002. In short, a very short, but significant question, i. e. , whether a `fresh ENQUIRY or a `further ENQUIRY against the delinquent is permissible under the Rules, arises for our consideration, examination and evaluation and resultant adjudication.

( 3 ) WE have been addressed at a greater length by the learned counsels appearing for the parties in support of the rival versions and we have been taken through the entire record during the course of submissions by the counsels and they have also placed reliance on case law to which reference will be made by us hereinafter at an appropriate stage as and when required for the consideration of the issue. We have also examined the text, tenor and texture of the impugned order of the Managing Director, GSFC, directing, upon examination of the report of the enquiry officer, for fresh further enquiry and also the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, which is under challenge before us. We have also considered threadbare the case law relied on by both the sides.

( 4 ) A short, but necessary and relevant spectre on factual matrix leading to the rise of this Letters Patent Appeal on hand may be narrated so as to be enlightened on the aforesaid main issue involved in this Letters Patent Appeal. Following factual aspects are no longer in controversy which also played important and material role in decision making process of the short issue before us. Sr. No.

Facts

Date

1.

Appellant is discharging duties as

General Manager with the respondent

Corporation

since 1990

2.

Upon allegations of serious financial

Irregularities in discharge of his

duties as General Manager-I,

25-11-1998

Mr. Patel came to be charge-sheeted

to

for the period from

16-12-1998

3.

Enquiry officer was appointed by the

Disciplinary authority to conduct

enquiry into the allegations made

in the charge sheet

16-11-1999

4.

Enquiry officer submitted his enquiry

report whereby the appellant-delinquent

came to be exonerated from all

the charges against him.

09-03-2001

5.

Disciplinary authority upon consideration

of the report of the enquiry

Officer decided to direct fresh

further enquiry finding that the

enquiry officer had not applied his

mind properly

12-09-2002

6.

Decision of the Managing Director

came to be questioned by the

Delinquent Mr. Patel by filing the

Special Civil Application in thi