Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. The appellant-writ petitioner was proceeded departmentally, vide proceedings dated 1. 1999 and the Co-operative Sub-Registrar (Credit and Marketing), Cheyyar was appointed as the enquiry officer. The said Co-operative Sub-Registrar (Credit and Marketing) conducted enquiry and submitted an enquiry report in October 1999. However, no final order was passed in the proceedings and subsequently, for the same set of allegations and charges, fresh proceedings were initiated in Na.Ka.No.4464/98 Sa.Pa., dated 1. 2002. Being aggrieved, the appellant-writ petitioner challenged the said fresh proceedings, with a prayer to direct the respondents to drop further action. The learned single Judge, in view of the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, dismissed the Writ Petition, by the impugned order dated 112. 2007 in W.P.No.659 of 2003. 2. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that fresh enquiry is permissible for the same set of charges and allegations. According to the respondents, the Sub-Registrar (Credit & Marketing) who was appointed as enquiry officer, did not cover all aspects of the enquiry and it was vague and was asked to submit a report again, but having not done so, the proceedings were initiated against the enquiry officer. 3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and noticed the rival contentions and documents on record. 4. From the impugned order dated 112. 2007 passed by the learned single Judge, it would be evident that before the learned single Judge, the respondents took a plea that the second enquiry has been ordered and is a comprehensive enquiry, involving several other aspects. On the other hand, before this Court, in their counter affidavit, it is merely pleaded that the enquiry officer has not covered all the aspects. There is nothing on record to suggest that the disciplinary authority differed with the findings of the enquiry officer or pointed out defects in the enquiry report. Nothing specific has been brought on record to suggest that any disciplinary action has been taken against the earlier enquiry officer, though it has been stated in the counter affidavit filed before this Court in the Writ Appeal that the first respondent had initiated disciplinary action against the enquiry officer. 5. Similar matter fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of K.R.Deb vs. Collector, Central Excise, Shillong, reported in AIR 1971 SC 1447 . 5. Similar matter fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of K.R.Deb vs. Collector, Central Excise, Shillong, reported in AIR 1971 SC 1447 . In the said case, taking into consideration Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, the Supreme Court, while observing that the said Rule does not contemplate successive inquiries, further held that if there is some defect in the inquiry conducted by the inquiry officer, the Disciplinary Authority can direct the Inquiry Officer to conduct further inquiries in respect of that matter, but it cannot direct a fresh inquiry to be conducted by some other officer. 6. In the present case, nothing was brought on record to suggest that the Rule contemplates successive enquiries. Further, it is stated that all aspects of the matter were not enquired; though it was open for the Disciplinary Authority to direct further enquiry in respect of that matter, but it was not open to the said authority to direct a fresh enquiry as ordered, vide impugned proceedings, dated 1. 2002. 7. The case of the appellant-writ petitioner being covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K.R. Deb (supra), we set aside the impugned proceedings, dated 1. 2002 and the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 112. 2007. The case is remitted to the respondents with liberty to decide whether they intend to proceed for further enquiry. If such a decision is taken, it should be communicated to the appellant-writ petitioner within a month from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this judgment and further proceedings should be concluded by the same enquiry officer within a period of three months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this judgment. The appellant-writ petitioner should co-operate in the departmental proceedings, failing which it will be open for the enquiry officer to proceed ex-parte in accordance with law. 8. The Writ Appeal is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.