A. J. SADASHIVA, J. ( 1 ) THOUGH this petition is listed for orders, the same is taken upfor final disposal with the consent of the learned Counselappearing on both the sides. ( 2 ) THE order dated November 28, 1995 passed by the second respondent as per Annexure-D directing de novo enquiry againstthe petitioner is sought to be quashed by the petitioner in thispetition. ( 3 ) SRI Nagaraj, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in K. R, Deb v The Collector of Central Excise, Shillong, the secondrespondent has no lawful authority to order for a de novoenquiry. The only power that can be exercised by the secondrespondent, according to Sri Nagaraj, is that, he can ask theenquiry officer to submit a fresh" report, after receivingadditional evidence which could not be produced on earlieroccasion, on the ground that the second respondent had noauthority to set aside the enquiry report of the enquiry officer. The relevant paragraph in the aforesaid judgment reads asfollows. "13. It seems to us that Rule 15, on the face of it, really provides for one inquiry but it may be possible if in a particular case there has been no proper enquiry because some serious defect has crept into the inquiry or some important witnesses were not available at the time of the inquiry or were not examined for some other reason, the disciplinary Authority may ask the Inquiry Officer to record further evidence. But there is no provision in Rule 15 for completely setting aside previous inquiries on the ground that the report of the Inquiring Officer or Officers does not appeal to the Disciplinary Authority. The disciplinary Authority has enough powers to reconsider the evidence itself and come to its own conclusion under rule 9". 4. It is admitted by the parties that one S. N. Patil was appointed by the second respondent as enquiry officer by order dated 18-8-1995. He issued summons to the petitioner along with a charge memo to file his objections. The petitioner filed his objections in the month of September, 1995. The enquiry officer after considering the objections, filed his report to the second respondent. From these events it is clear that the enquiry officer did not conduct any enquiry of whatever nature. He issued summons to the petitioner along with a charge memo to file his objections. The petitioner filed his objections in the month of September, 1995. The enquiry officer after considering the objections, filed his report to the second respondent. From these events it is clear that the enquiry officer did not conduct any enquiry of whatever nature. No notice was issued to either of the parties to produce evidence in support of their respective cases nor did the enquiry officer recorded any evidence on his own nor was the second respondent asked to produce any document in support of the charges. From the records, it is clear that the enquiry officer did not conduct any enquiry except receiving the objections and filing the report on the basis of the objections. 5. THE decision sought to be relied by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of this case, is of little assistance, in the absence of any enquiry regarding the charges. It is well-settled that the domestic enquiry shall be held in accordance with law; reasonable opportunities must be given to both the parties to produce evidence; the enquiry shall be conducted at a place, time and on the date on which it was decided by the enquiry officer; the parties should be allowed to lead evidence. In view of the strange procedure followed by the enquiry officer, against the well accepted procedure, the second respondent left with no alternative but to order for a de novo enquiry. I find no infirmity in the order. The petition therefore fails and accordingly rejected. 1. PROVIDES for one inquiry but it may be possible if in a particular case there has been no proper enquiry because some serious defect has crept into the inquiry or some important witnesses were not available at the time of the inquiry or were not examined for some other reason, the disciplinary Authority may ask the Inquiry Officer to record further evidence. But there is no provision in Rule 15 for completely setting aside previous inquiries on the ground that the report of the Inquiring Officer or Officers does not appeal to the Disciplinary Authority. The disciplinary Authority has enough powers to reconsider the evidence itself and come to its own conclusion under rule 9". But there is no provision in Rule 15 for completely setting aside previous inquiries on the ground that the report of the Inquiring Officer or Officers does not appeal to the Disciplinary Authority. The disciplinary Authority has enough powers to reconsider the evidence itself and come to its own conclusion under rule 9". ( 4 ) IT is admitted by the parties that one S. N. Patil was appointed by the second respondent as enquiry officer by order dated 18-8-1995. He issued summons to the petitioner along with a charge memo to file his objections. The petitioner filed his objections in the month of September, 1995. The enquiry officer after considering the objections, filed his report to the second respondent. From these events it is clear that the enquiry officer did not conduct any enquiry of whatever nature. No notice was issued to either of the parties to produce evidence in support of their respective cases nor did the enquiry officer recorded any evidence on his own nor was the second respondent asked to produce any document in support of the charges. From the records, it is clear that the enquiry officer did not conduct any enquiry except receiving the objections and filing the report on the basis of the objections. ( 5 ) THE decision sought to be relied by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of this case, is of little assistance, in the absence of any enquiry regarding the charges. It is well-settled that the domestic enquiry shall be held in accordance with law; reasonable opportunities must be given to both the parties to produce evidence; the enquiry shall be conducted at a place, time and on the date on which it was decided by the enquiry officer; the parties should be allowed to lead evidence. In view of the strange procedure followed by the enquiry officer, against the well accepted procedure, the second respondent left with no alternative but to order for a de novo enquiry. I find no infirmity in the order. The petition therefore fails and accordingly rejected. The records filed by the second respondent are returned. --- *** --- .