( 1 ) IN this writ petition notice was issued to the respondents to show cause as to why rule should not be issued. It has come up for preliminary hearing under 'b' Group after respondents have been served and represented. Therefore, the matter is taken up for final hearing by consent of Counsel. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was a civilian employee, serving in the Madras Engi. neer Group and Centre, Bangalore. He was employed as a cook at the said centre. Certain allegations were made against the petitioner stating that he was collecting funds unauthorisedly for the Civilian Employees Association and that he had therefore contravened the provisions of R. 12 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). ( 3 ) IN terms of the Rules, he was served with charge memo, dated 6-7-1970 and was called upon to show cause against his misconduct as stated above. An enquiry under R. 14 of the (CCA) Rules, 1965 was held and the petitioner denied the allegation against him and contended that the said enquiry was irregular. But nevertheless, as per the result of the said enquiry, his services were terminated in violation of Art. 311 (2) as alleged with effect from 3rd July, 1978. ( 4 ) UNDER R. 21 of the 1965 Rules, the petitioner filed an appeal to the appellate authority. The appeal came to be disposed of by the Engineer-in-chief, having his offices at Army Head-quarters, New Delhi. ( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the denial of the benefit to which he is entitled to, by the order made in appeal as stated above, the petitioner has challenged the legality and correctness of the confidential memorandum issued by respondent-2 dated 23rd January, 1979. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order of the 2nd respondent was wholly without jurisdiction and without the authority of law. His appeal has been allowed and a fresh enquiry has been ordered from the stage of oral enquiry at which it had culminated in his dismissal. The order under appeal reads as follows :" Your appeal dated 18th Aug,, 78 against the penalty of 'dismissal from service' awarded to you by commandant Madras Engineer Group and centre, Bangalore, vide his No. C-2090/mrs/87/eic dated 3rd July, 1978 has been considered. 2. The order under appeal reads as follows :" Your appeal dated 18th Aug,, 78 against the penalty of 'dismissal from service' awarded to you by commandant Madras Engineer Group and centre, Bangalore, vide his No. C-2090/mrs/87/eic dated 3rd July, 1978 has been considered. 2. In view of the procedural lapse in finalisation of the oral inquiry the case has been remitted for denovo proceedings from the stage of oral inquiry to Commandant, MEG and Centre. Sd. (J. S. Bawn), Lt. Gen. Pramukh Engineer, Engineer in Chief. "the endorsement issued by the 2nd respondent is as follows:1. Reference this Hq. Letter No. C-2090/mrs/x/eic dated 23rd dec , 1978. 2. Orders of the Appellate Authority have now been received that the case was remitted to the Disciplinary Authority for denovo proceedings and that the penalty was not set aside and will remain operative pending finalisation of the de novo proceedings. The question of payment, for the period in question, therefore, does not arise at present. 3. In view of the above, you are hereby informed that the penalty of dismissal already to you stands and you are directed to cease to work forthwith. Sd. (T. S. Bedi) Lt. Col. Dy, Comdt. ( 7 ) IT has been contended for the second respondent by Shri U. L. Narayana rao the learned Counsel, that from the above orders, it would be clear that the original enquiry which resulted in the order of dismissal of the petitioner had not been set aside by the appellate authority and therefore, the 2nd respon. dent was justified in endorsing the same and ordering a de novo enquiry without withdrawing the order of dismissal earlier made pursuant to enquiry which had been held by the appellate authority to suffer from procedural lapse. It is difficult to accede to this contention. The appellate order though brief, if properly understood, in substance, means no more than that the entire proceedings resulting in the dismissal was a procedural lapse. The matter has been remitted for the de novo proceedings to the 1st respondent. If understood as such, it is clear that the 2nd respondent was in error in coming to the conclusion that the original dismissal order would still survive after the order in appeal was made as extracted above. Dismissal cannot be presumed without enquiry de novo. The matter has been remitted for the de novo proceedings to the 1st respondent. If understood as such, it is clear that the 2nd respondent was in error in coming to the conclusion that the original dismissal order would still survive after the order in appeal was made as extracted above. Dismissal cannot be presumed without enquiry de novo. I am therefore, of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits flowing from the order in appeal and must be held to be deemed to be in service subject however to fresh enquiry in accordance with Rules. Therefore, Exhibit-E is liable to be quashed as illegal and without jurisdiction and it is so quashed in so far as it states that the original order of dismissal is operative and that the petitioner should cease to work. ( 8 ) THE 1st respondent is free to proceed with the enquiry de novo in accordance with the Rules. Rule will issue as above and is made absolute. ( 9 ) IN the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .