SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.

1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.3.2014, as contained in letter no. RO/JR/VIGILANCE/27/306 issued under the signature of Deputy General Manager-cum-Disciplinary Authority, whereby and where under decision has been taken to conduct de novo (fresh) enquiry against the petitioner.

2. The statement has been made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed in the respondent-Bank and is serving as Head Cashier in the Bank of Baroda. The petitioner is posted in Burma Mines Branch, Jamshedpur. A disciplinary action was contemplated against him. As a result he was put under suspension in contemplation of departmental proceeding vide letter dated 5.7.2013. The explanation was sought for from the petitioner vide letter dated 22.7.2013 in respect of alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner for commission of irregularities.

3. The petitioner has submitted his explanation on 5.8.2013 and informed the Deputy General Manager, Bank of Baroda that because of heavy work load these lapses have occurred. The petitioner has reiterated the same thing in the reply dated 14.8.2013.

4. The respondent-bank, being not satisfied with the said explanation, issued charge sheet dated 24.10.2013 in terms of Clause-7 of the Memorandum of Settlement. An Inquiry Officer has been appointed, inquiry has been initiated, Inquiry Officer has given notice to the petitioner. The petitioner, after putting his appearance before the Inquiry Officer, has accepted his guilt and has stated that because of the heavy work load, the lapses have been committed by him. However, he has submitted that there was no loss caused to the bank.

5. The Inquiry Officer has submitted inquiry report wherein the charge levelled against the petitioner has been proved.

6. The disciplinary authority, without passing any final order, has passed an order on 13.3.2014 whereby decision was taken to conduct inquiry de novo (fresh).

7. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the decision of the respondent-bank to initiate an inquiry de novo, has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition.

8. The ground taken by the writ petitioner in challenging the order dated 13.3.2014 is that in absence of any provision in the Bipartite Settlement (Annexure-7 to the writ petition), there cannot be any de novo inquiry.

9. The further ground has been taken that when the petitioner has already admitted his guilt in his explanation given by him before the Inquiry Officer and the Inquiry Officer has found the charge proved on the basis of the said admission, then the authority needs to have passed order rather than to issue any direction to initiate a de novo proceeding.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-bank has submitted that the nature of allegation of the petitioner is very serious and, as such, the petitioner cannot be permitted to take advantage of Clause-12(e)(ii) because in case of admission of guilt, the bank cannot pass any order of dismissal or discharge. The further submission has been made on behalf of the respondent-bank that the decision to initiate de novo inquiry has been taken which will not prejudice the interest of the petitioner and in terms of the bipartite settlement, in case of major punishment a regular departmental inquiry is supposed to be initiated in terms of the provisions as contained in Clause-12(a). Further submission has been made that since the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer has not been accepted by the disciplinary authority and, as such, it is the discretion of the disciplinary authority to accept or not to accept the finding of the Inquiry Officer or to take a decision to initiate de novo inquiry.

11. After hearing the parties and considering the documents on record, the charges which have been levelled against the petitioner, it is necessary to reproduce the same:-

“ALLEGATIONS:

1. You have received the case of Rs.43000/- from M/s B.R. Pharma on 29.5.201