PRADIP MOHANTY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in this writ petition calls in question the order dated November 20, 2002 passed by the District Judge, Khurda at bhubaneswar in D. P. No. 5 of 1999 directing for a fresh enquiry into the charges levelled against him. ( 2 ) THE petitioner's case, in short, is that the aforesaid departmental proceeding was initiated against him on the basis of the charges videannexure-2 and the Chief Judicial magistrate, Khurda was appointed as the enquiring Officer. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiring Officer submitted a report opining that the charges are unfounded and could not be brought home to the delinquent. However, on receipt of the report, the Disciplinary Authority-opposite party No. 1 has passed an order on November 20, 2002 directing to cause fresh enquiry into the charges. On the basis of the said order, the letter under Annexure-1 has been issued which is impugned in this writ petition. ( 3 ) A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties stating therein that the direction for fresh enquiry was absolutely just and proper. As the order of the Disciplinary authority was not available in the records, the learned Additional Government Advocate was directed to produce the records of the relevant disciplinary proceeding. Pursuant to such direction, the records of the Disciplinary proceeding has been produced and we have perused the same. ( 4 ) AS it reveals, the Disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings recorded by the Enquiring Officer for the reason that some relevant witnesses were not examined on behalf of the Department. It is always open to the Disciplinary Authority either to agree with the findings recorded by the Enquiring Officer or to disagree with the same. In case he does not agree with the findings of the Enquiring officer, he may record his own findings, as has been held in the case of Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1999 SC 3734 : 1999 (7) SCC 739 . ( 5 ) A bare reading of the order dated november 20, 2002 of the Disciplinary authority goes to show that while passing the said order he has placed reliance on the notes of the Registrar, Civil Courts that the Enquiring officer has not properly appreciated the evidence led before him during enquiry. ( 5 ) A bare reading of the order dated november 20, 2002 of the Disciplinary authority goes to show that while passing the said order he has placed reliance on the notes of the Registrar, Civil Courts that the Enquiring officer has not properly appreciated the evidence led before him during enquiry. Inasmuch as, a serving staff car driver will not make allegation of such a deal involving him and the delinquent knowing fully well that he will thereby make himself vulnerable to departmental action and punishment. Thus, it appears that the Disciplinary Authority was swayed away by such note of the Registrar while passing the order aforesaid. In our considered opinion, this course adopted by the disciplinary Authority was not permissible. The Registrar, Civil Courts had nothing to comment on the findings of the Enquiring Officer. It was the Disciplinary Authority, who alone could have applied his mind while considering the report of the Enquiring Officer. We, therefore, quash the order dated november 20, 2002 passed by the Disciplinary authority and direct him to apply his independent mind afresh to the findings recorded by the Enquiring Officer. ( 6 ) THE writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. .