JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. — The legality of the order passed by the disciplinary authority directing a fresh inquiry to be held is under challenge before this Court. 2. The petitioner while working as Office Manager in the opposite arty No.1 Corporation, was directed by letter dated 24th April, 1991 to submit documentary evidence proving existence of sisters on the ground that a complaint had been received that even though the petitioner had no sisters, he had drawn marriage advances twice and the family particulars furnished by the peti¬tioner indicated five sisters and two brothers. Not being satis¬fied with the reply given by the petitioner, a decision was taken to initiate a departmental proceeding and memorandum of charges was framed in 1992. The petitioner submitted his written state¬ment of defence denying the allegation made in the memorandum of charges and on 31.3.1992 an Inquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charge. The inquiry continued from day to day and was concluded on 2.12.1994. After conclusion of the inquiry the disciplinary authority did not pass any order for a consider¬able length of time and in spite of repeated representations also the copy of the inquiry report was not supplied to him. However, on 27th December, 1995 the petitioner was informed that the disciplinary authority has remitted the matter back to the In¬quiry Officer for holding a fresh inquiry. A copy of the order passed by the disciplinary authority has been annexed to the writ application as Annexure-7. The said order passed by the discipli¬nary authority is under challenge in this writ application. 3. The petitioner who appeared in person submitted that in course of the inquiry he had lodged no complaint about violation of principles of natural justice and after conclusion of the inquiry a report was submitted by the Inquiring Officer finding the petitioner not guilty of charge. In order to harass the petitioner the disciplinary authority directed for fresh inquiry on the ground that principles of natural justice had not been followed. The petitioner emphatically submitted that when he had not complained of violation of principles of natural justice, there was no occasion for the disciplinary authority to remit the matter back to the Inquiry Officer for fresh inquiry on that ground. The petitioner emphatically submitted that when he had not complained of violation of principles of natural justice, there was no occasion for the disciplinary authority to remit the matter back to the Inquiry Officer for fresh inquiry on that ground. On the other hand, the inquiry report which was based on materials placed by the Management before the Inquiry Officer should have been accepted by the disciplinary authority and the petitioner should have been exonerated from the charge. The petitioner further submitted that the disciplinary proceeding is being purposefully dragged and delayed so that the petitioner would be deprived for further promotion as well as denied the opportunity of taking voluntary retirement under a scheme. 4. A counter has been filed on behalf of the opposite par¬ties 1,2 and 4. Supporting the order of the disciplinary authori¬ty it is stated in the counter that the procedure laid down for conducting disciplinary proceeding was not followed by the In¬quiry Officer for which the disciplinary authority thought it proper to remit it back to the Inquiry Officer for fresh inquiry. Reliance is placed by the Law Officer of the Corporation on Rule 25 (13), (14), (15) (16) and (17) of the M.M.T.C. Employees Conduct, Disciplinary and Appeal Rules, 1975. The Law Officer who argued the matter on behalf of the Corporation submitted that after closure of the evidence from the Management’s side, it was the duty of the Inquiry Officer to direct the delinquent officer to put forth his defence either orally or in writing. The Pre¬senting Officer and the Inquiry Officer have a right to cross-examine the delinquent officer on the defence taken by him. This procedure was not followed by the Inquiry Officer before submission of the inquiry report. It is also stated in the coun¬ter affidavit that the father of the petitioner in the declara¬tion given for payment of pension had not mentioned the names of any of the daughters which is an indication that the petitioner had no sister. 5. Attention of the Court has been drawn to Annexure-10, the inquiry report. It is also stated in the coun¬ter affidavit that the father of the petitioner in the declara¬tion given for payment of pension had not mentioned the names of any of the daughters which is an indication that the petitioner had no sister. 5. Attention of the Court has been drawn to Annexure-10, the inquiry report. The nature of the charge is that the petitioner while functioning as Office Manager during the year 1983 is alleged to have falsified in his family declaration showing therein Kumari Arundhati Tripathy, Kumari Haripriya Tripathy, Kumari Shakuntala Tripathy, Kumari Shailaja Tripathy and Kumari Pinki Tripathy as his dependent sisters and obtained marriage advances and non-refundable of CPF advances towards marriages of above sisters during the period from July, 1982 to August, 1986. The documents produced before the Inquiry Officer are the photo copy of the service book where payment of marriage advances to the petitioner had been entered, copy of the applications for drawal of marriage advances submitted by the petitioner, note-sheet containing processing of the applications and the office order authorising grant of marriage advance. It appears from the inquiry report that the Presenting Officer in support of the charge had produced 4 witnesses out of total 6 witnesses listed for examination. The evidence recorded from the side of the Management revealed nothing but drawal of the advances by the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer has found that there is no dis¬pute about drawal of advances by the petitioner and the dispute is as to whether the petitioner had five dependent sisters or not and no materials were placed in support of the charge as to whether the petitioner had five sisters or not. The only document which was produced for consideration is copy of the letter No. 4306 dated 1.11.1991 issued by the Deputy Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Cuttack. The said document speaks about particulars furnished by the father of the petitioner in connection with his pension matter. On perusal of the said document the Inquiry Officer was of the view that normally for the purpose of pension declaration of all the family members is not required to be shown except the persons who would be entitled to draw the pension in case of demise of the Government employee. On perusal of the said document the Inquiry Officer was of the view that normally for the purpose of pension declaration of all the family members is not required to be shown except the persons who would be entitled to draw the pension in case of demise of the Government employee. The statement of the petitioner that prior to retirement of his father, all the sisters had married and therefore, their names had not been indicated in the declaration given by his father, was accepted by the Inquiry Officer, in absence of any other material to show that the petitioner did not have five sisters as claimed. The Inquiry Officer concluded by saying that the charge has not been proved due to lack of material evidence either from the declaration of the father of the petitioner or otherwise and therefore, on the aforesaid ground exonerated the petitioner from the charge. This inquiry report is stated to have been submitted on 15th December, 1994 as stated in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit. The disciplinary authority for reasons best known to him kept quiet for a period of one year and only on 27th December, 1995 passed the following order : “ Based on the report of the Enquiry Officer dated 15th Dec. 1994, and the evidence led at the enquiry in respect of the charge-sheet issued to Shri R. S. Tripathy, OM (Emp. No. 914330) posted at Bhubaneswar RO, vide Memo bearing No.1/29/90-Vig/903, dated 14th Feb. 1992, the undersigned considers it necessary and appropriate to remit the case to the enquiring authority to hold a fresh enquiry and submit his report as per Rule 26 of the MMTC Employees’ Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1975, due to violation of the principles of natural justice. I order accordingly.” 6. It is evident from the order passed by the disciplinary authority that he has not considered the case on merits and has remitted back the case to the Inquiry Officer for fresh inquiry only on the ground that there has been violation of principles of natural justice. The Law Officer who appeared on behalf of the Corporation could not place any document where the petitioner has complained of violation of principles of natural justice. He has also not been able to place any document in which the Management has complained of violation of the principles of natural justice. The Law Officer who appeared on behalf of the Corporation could not place any document where the petitioner has complained of violation of principles of natural justice. He has also not been able to place any document in which the Management has complained of violation of the principles of natural justice. In absence of any complaint from either side, it was not open for the disciplinary authority to remit the matter back to the In¬quiry Officer for fresh inquiry on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The stand taken in the counter affidavit that the procedure had not been followed is also not acceptable. After closure of the evidence from the Management’s side the Inquiry Officer did not think it necessary to record the defence statement as the Management had miserably failed to establish the charge and only one document had been produced on behalf of the Management in support of the charge. There was no violation of principles of natural justice so far as the Manage¬ment is concerned as out of six listed witnesses, four had been examined and documents were produced. If the Management miserably failed to establish the charge, in my opinion, non-recording of the defence version is merely an irregularity and cannot be taken as a ground for not accepting the inquiry report. I, therefore, do not find any reason to sustain the order passed by the disci¬plinary authority in Annexure-7 which is quashed. It is unfortu¬nate that one year after submission of the inquiry report the disciplinary authority passed an order directing the Inquiry Officer to hold a fresh inquiry. No reasons have been assigned in the counter as to why the disciplinary authority took one year to pass an order on the inquiry report. The charge was framed in April, 1991 and for four-and-half years the proceeding continued and ultimately in December, 1995 only the impugned order was passed by the disciplinary authority. In the meantime more than four years have also passed and I, therefore, do not find any reason for continuance of the disciplinary proceeding any further as not only more than nine years have passed in the meantime but also in spite of reasonable opportunity being afforded to the Management it failed to establish the charge. In view of the findings above, the writ application succeeds. In view of the findings above, the writ application succeeds. I accordingly allow the writ application and quash the impugned order in Annexure-7. Petition allowed.