Judgment :- K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J. The petitioner, who is the Central Nazir of the District Court, Sivagangai District, seeks for a certiorari to cal I for the records relating to the order of the first respondent, the District Judge of Sivagangai District, dated 30.6.2005 and to quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned. 2. According to the petitioner, having joined duty in the Judicial Department as Copyist on 22.11.1968, she was promoted from time to time and she was now holding the post of Central Nazir, District Court, Sivagangai District. While she was working as Sherishtadar, Sub-Court, Devakottai, during the year 2003, a charge memo was issued alleging that she had misappropriated printing charges to the tune of Rs.271 and that the same was not accounted for and remitted to Government. The Enquiry Officer/Subordinate Judge, Devakottai, conducted an enquiry and after examining three witnesses on the department side and two wit­ nesses on the side of the delinquent, held in his report dated 10.6.2005, that the charge had not been proved against the petitioner. However, the first respondent/disciplinary authority, by order dated 30.6.2005 set aside the enquiry and directed a de-novo enquiry against the petitioner and one S. Sabapathy, the then Sheri Sherishtadar Assistant, against whom the charge of alleged defalcation has been proved. Against the said order the petitioner has come forward with the above writ petition contending that the order of the disciplinary authority ordering de-novo enquiry is not sustainable. 3. Mr. K. Chelladurai, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that when the disciplinary authority chooses to differ from the opinion of the enquiry officer, it is incumbent on the disciplinary authority to furnish a proper show cause notice along with a copy of the enquiry report. In this case, the petitioner was neither furnished with a copy of the enquiry report nor called upon to show cause against the proposed holding of de-novo enquiry. Reliance is placed on the judgment of a Division Bench of Principal Bench of this Court in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. P. Palanivelan, (2005) 3 C.T.C656 4. We have considered the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader. 5. Reliance is placed on the judgment of a Division Bench of Principal Bench of this Court in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. P. Palanivelan, (2005) 3 C.T.C656 4. We have considered the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader. 5. It is true that in all cases where the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority con­cludes that a de-novo enquiry may be neces­sary, a show cause notice to the delinquent may not be necessary, if fie is not satisfied with the evidence or the analysis of the evidence by the enquiry officer. But, in this case, it is stated that the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty. It may be that the disciplinary authority found materials to order enquiry against an­ other person, viz., S. Sabapathy, also. But, with reference to the case of the petitioner, in view of the fact that the enquiry officer had found her not guilty of the charges, there can be no scope of ordering de-novo enquiry against the petitioner, unless and otherwise the disciplin­ary authority is inclined to disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer holding that the delinquent was not guilty of the charges. In the said event, it is mandatory for the disciplinary authority to furnish a copy of the enquiry report as well as give reasons for differing with the views of the enquiry officer and to give opportunity to the delinquent to make his representation on the said proposal. 6. In this case, in view of the fact that the enquiry officer has found the petitioner not guilty, only two courses will be open to the disciplinary authority. The first alternative is to agree with the enquiry officer's report and to absolve the petitioner. The second alternative is that in the event of the disciplinary authority entertaining a feeling that the finding of the enquiry officer cannot be sustained, then he is obliged to furnish a copy of the report and call upon the delinquent to submit her representation on the proposal of the disciplinary authority either to disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer or the reasons for ordering de-novo enquiry. 7. 7. Therefore, we are inclined to agree with the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and hold that the impugned order, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order, dated 30.6.2005, passed by the first respondent is quashed, in so far as the petitioner is concerned. However, liberty is given to the first respondent to initiate proceedings afresh as indicated above in the event of the disciplinary authority being of the opinion that the proceedings should be started afresh against the delinquent. 8. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Connected W.P.M.P.(M.D.) Nos.7053 of 2005 is closed.