SUJOY PAUL, J.

1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order (Annexure P/12) whereby the disciplinary authority directed for reinstitution of enquiry. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of present controversy are that the petitioner is an employee of respondent No. 2. He was served with a charge sheet (Annexure P/8) dated 28.12.2004. Petitioner submitted his reply. Thereafter an enquiry officer was appointed by the disciplinary authority. The said enquiry officer submitted his report dated 01.06.2005 (Annexure P/9). Petitioner was aggrieved by this report because he was not afforded with adequate opportunity of defence in the enquiry. Hence, he filed representation dated 11.07.2006 (Annexure P/10). It is prayed therein that re-enquiry be conducted so that he can put-forth his defence. The disciplinary authority, in turn, by order dated 21.07.2006 (Annexure P/11) appointed Shri Gajendra Sharma as enquiry officer and reinstituted the enquiry afresh. The said enquiry officer submitted his report on 24.07.2006. Shri S.K. Sharma submits that petitioner was exonerated in the said report. The disciplinary authority has committed an error i