JUDGMENT :

1. Appellant has filed this appeal challenging order dated 23.08.2004 passed by the learned Single, whereby, writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.

2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. Enquiry Officer, after holding enquiry, found that the charges levelled against the appellant were not proved. Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 05.05.1986 remanded the case to the Enquiry Officer for holding a de-novo enquiry. Order dated 05.05.1986 was a non-speaking order. Enquiry Officer had conducted enquiry after following due procedure of law. Hence, the order dated 05.05.1986 was liable to be set aside. In support of his arguments, learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Abdul Aleem, v. Director, Survey Training Institute (C.S.T. and M.P.) Survey of India, Uppal, Hyderabad, 1975 LAB. I.C. 1682 wherein it was held as under:

"6. There is yet another infirmity in that order and that is that it has not recorded its reasons for directing a fresh inquiry. What all is stated in the impugned order is that there are grave lacunae and procedural defects in the inquiry previously held. No other reason is even attempted to be given. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that there are reasons required to be recorded in writing by Rule 15 (1). Simply saying that there are grave lacunae and procedural defects, is not assigning reasons for setting aside an inquiry and its report. Rule 15 (1) clearly requires reasons to be given which could only mean cogent reasons. Otherwise the very purpose of Rule 15 (1) would be defeated. When a further inquiry is ordered the order should be speaking one, giving cogent reasons for ordering further inquiry. These are absent in the impugned order and for this reason also it has a grave and fatal defect."

3. Learned Senior Advocate has next placed reliance on judgment of Delhi High Court in Inspector/Exe. Vinod Gill Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. [WP (C) No. 12621/2005 decided on 31.08.2006] wherein it was held as under:

"8. We have already discussed that in the impugned order of the appellate authority, no reason whatsoever has been stated for directing a de-novo enquiry. Further we are of the considered view that no jurisdiction is vested in the appellate authority even upon the liberal construction of the above provisions to direct de-novo enquiry, particularly in the manner in which it has been done. To keep the disciplinary action against delinquent official within the prescribed limitation of law and rules, holding of fresh enquiry on same article of charges where the enquiry has already been held twice over and there is concurrence between the disciplinary authority and the enquiry officer, it would not be normally permissible to hold de-novo enquiry. The concept of de-novo enquiry is the effect of completely wiping out the earlier enquiry as a whole. Unless rules specifically permit and there are circumstances justifying invoking of such powers, the de-novo enquiry cannot be permitted.

15. The disciplinary authority and for that matter even the appellate authority must have sufficient reasons even if it wishes to direct further of fresh enquiry. Until and unless there are circumstances, which affects prejudicially the rights of the parties and there is apparent violation of rules and principles of natural justice, there can hardly be any occasion for the authorities to direct further or fresh enquiry. The authorities are expected to act objectively and with due application of mind. No exceptions as stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. P. Thayagarajan AIR 1999 SC 449 have been made out in the present case."

4. Learned Senior Advocate has further placed reliance on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanailal Bera Vs. Union of India (UOI) & Others, (2007) 11 SCC