ORDER Dipak Misra, J. 1. Invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashment of Annexure P-5 dated 11-4-1997 by which the disciplinary authority has directed re-enquiry in respect of the charges framed against the Petitioner. 2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the Petitioner was working as an Assistant in the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch Office at Narsinghpur. He was issued a chargesheet on 30-4-1996 contained in Annexure P-1. As per the chargesheet the Branch Office Narsinghpur had issued a cheque bearing No. QTC 307672 dated 26-3-1993 for Rs. 603/- drawn at Punjab National Bank, Branch Narsinghpur in favour of one Rajesh Kumar, an Agent (Code No. 540-388) being the refund of excess income-tax deducted on 5-5-1992 and the Petitioner managed to receive said cheque in an unauthorised manner and with dishonest motive and malafide intention, misappropriated the said amount by getting the said amount deposited in his account No. 6040 in Punjab National Bank, Branch Office Narsinghpur taking advantage of similarity in his name and in the name of the agent and thereby committed fraud on the Corporation. The Petitioner was asked to file his written statement along with list of witnesses and documents within a stipulated period. The Petitioner filed his written statement and list of witnesses and the disciplinary authority appointed one K.P.S. Naik as an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report vide Annexure P-14 dated 24-9-1996. 3. After the Enquiry Officer submitted his report exonerating the Petitioner, the disciplinary authority, as put forth in the writ petition without taking note of the same vide Annexure P-5, passed the following order: According to the writ Petitioner the rules governing the field does not authorise the disciplinary authority for directing any kind of re-enquiry into self-same charges and, therefore, the order passed vide Annexure P-5 is unsustainable. 4. A return has been filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') contending, inter alia, that the Corporation has no intention to conduct a re-enquiry and the enquiry would be confined to the examination of an handwriting expert to examine the relevant handwriting/signature. 5. I have heard Mr. Vivek Awasthy, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. R. P. Agrawal, learned senior counsel along with Mr. 5. I have heard Mr. Vivek Awasthy, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. R. P. Agrawal, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Lalit Pandey, for the Respondents. 6. Mr. Awasthy has contended that Annexure P-5 on the face of it is vulnerable as it directs for re-enquiry. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of K. R. Deb v. The Collector of Central Excise, Shillong, AIR 1971 SC 1447 and S. K. Banerjee v. The M. P. Electricity Board and others, W.P. No. 5286/1998 decided on 26-11-1998. It is further canvassed by him that the plea of the Corporation that intends to hold a limited enquiry is unacceptable as the regulations governing the field do not countenance such a situation. Per contra, submission of Mr. Agrawal is that the Corporation has no intention to hold a re-enquiry but only to conduct further enquiry which is permissible in law. 7. Submissions of the Learned Counsel at the Bar, can be put into two compartments, namely, (i) whether the order of appointment of a fresh enquiry officer to inquire into the charges, which is a re-enquiry, as contained in Annexure P-5, is sustainable; and (ii) if not, whether as per regulations of the Corporation, further enquiry to the limited extent is permissible. 8. To appreciate the submissions it is apposite to refer to Regulation No. 39 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulations') Relevant portion of the said Regulation reads as under: 39(1). 8. To appreciate the submissions it is apposite to refer to Regulation No. 39 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulations') Relevant portion of the said Regulation reads as under: 39(1). Without prejudice to the provisions of other regulations, (any one or more of) the following penalties for good and sufficient reasons, and as hereinafter provided, be imposed (by the disciplinary authority) specified in Schedule on any employee who commits a breach of regulations of the Corporation, or who displays negligence, inefficiency or indolence or who knowingly does anything detriments to the interest of Corporation, or conflicting with the instructions or who commits a breach of discipline, or guilty or any other act prejudicial to good conduct (a) censure; (b) withholding of one or more increments either permanently or for specified period; (c) recovery from pay or such other amount as may be due to him of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation by negligence or breach of orders; (d) reduction to a lower service, or post, or to a lower time-scale, or to a lower stage in a time-scale; (e) compulsory retirement; (f) removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment; (g) dismissal. *(2) No order imposing on an employee any of the penalties specified in Clauses (b) to (g) of sub-regulation (1) supra, shall be passed by the disciplinary authority specified in Schedule I without the charge or charges being communicated to him in writing and without his having been given a reasonable opportunity of defending himself against such charge or charges and of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him. (3) The disciplinary authority empowered to impose any of the penalties (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), or (g) may itself enquire into such of the charges as are not admitted or if it considers it necessary so to do, appoint a board or enquiry or an enquiry officer for the purpose. (emphasis supplied). On a plain reading of the aforesaid provision it is graphically clear that it does not authorise the disciplinary authority to direct for re-enquiry. The purpose of Annexure P-5 ex facie, shows disciplinary authority was desirous of conducting re-enquiry. The stand in the return is different than that is understood from order passed vide Annexure P-5. (emphasis supplied). On a plain reading of the aforesaid provision it is graphically clear that it does not authorise the disciplinary authority to direct for re-enquiry. The purpose of Annexure P-5 ex facie, shows disciplinary authority was desirous of conducting re-enquiry. The stand in the return is different than that is understood from order passed vide Annexure P-5. In the case of K. R. Deb (supra) the Apex Court while has ruled as under: 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." Similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Kamal Kishore Bansal v. M.P.E.B., 1994 (1) MPWN 91 , wherein a Division Bench of this Court expressed that a direction for re-enquiry is not permissible if the rules do not so prescribe. In the case of S. K. Banerjee (supra) the said view has been reiterated. Hence, I am of the considered view that the re-enquiry as directed by the Corporation vide Annexure P-5 is unsustainable. 9. Now I shall proceed to deal with the second limb of submission of Mr. Agrawal, Learned Counsel for the Corporation. It is canvassed by him that the Corporation has made its stand wide clear that it had intention to pass an order for further enquiry and a new officer was appointed as the earlier officer was likely to retire soon and had enough leave to his credit. Mr. Awasthy, per contra, has submitted that Regulation 39 does not authorise for further enquiry. The aforesaid submission of Mr. Agrawal has substantial force inasmuch as the Apex Court while not accepting the direction for re-enquiry has opined that in certain given cases it may be possible for directing further enquiry. Mr. Awasthy, per contra, has submitted that Regulation 39 does not authorise for further enquiry. The aforesaid submission of Mr. Agrawal has substantial force inasmuch as the Apex Court while not accepting the direction for re-enquiry has opined that in certain given cases it may be possible for directing further enquiry. In the case at hand, further enquiry could have been directed, as submitted by Mr. Agrawal, but because of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, Annexure P-5 came into existence. Mr. Agrawal, learned senior counsel has submitted that the Corporation shall not brush aside the enquiry report of the earlier enquiry officer and also consider the evidence adduced before him but a further enquiry may be permitted to be done by examining the handwriting expert in respect of the signature as that is essential in the present case. 10. Considering the totality of circumstances, I am of the considered view that Annexure P-5 is vulnerable and liable to be quashed and, accordingly I do so. However, it would be open to the Corporation to proceed for further enquiry to the limited extent as stated in the return by appointing a fresh enquiry officer, as the earlier enquiry officer has retired in the meantime. Respondents shall be given adequate opportunity to cross-examine the said expert witness and it would be open to him to lead further evidence, if circumstances so warrant. Enquiry, if any, conducted by the enquiry officer who was appointed pursuant to Annexure P-5, shall not be taken into consideration. 11. With the aforesaid observation and directions the writ petition stands disposed of without any order as to costs.