Judgment :- Nagamohan Das, J. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the articles of charges dated 15.07.2004 and the enquiry report dated 21.04.2005 and for other reliefs. 2. On 05.04.1993, the respondents appointed the petitioner as a driver. On 20.12.2002, articles of charges were issued to the respondent alleging that he had secured the appointment by producing a bogus transfer certificate issued by the Government Primary School, Karle at Hassan Taluk. The respondent submitted his reply to the articles of charges interalia denying the allegations made against him. The Disciplinary Authority not being satisfied with the explanation of the respondent initiated enquiry proceedings and appointed one Sri. B.T. Nanjundaiah as enquiry officer. On 27.09.2002, the enquiry officer submitted his report stating that the charges leveled against the respondent as not proved. The Disciplinary Authority neither accepted the enquiry report nor disagreed with the same. Long thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority issued another articles of charges on 15.07.2004 for the second time in respect of the very same charges leveled earlier. In the second articles of charges, the Disciplinary Authority specifies that the earlier articles of charges dated 20.02.2002 as withdrawn. To this second articles of charges, the respondent submitted his reply on 26.07.2004 interalia contending that the same is illegal and unjustified. The Disciplinary Authority without considering the reply submitted by the respondent initiated enquiry proceedings by appointing one Sri. Indudhara as enquiry officer. On 15.04.2005, the second enquiry officer submitted his report stating that the petitioners have established the charges leveled against the respondent. The petitioner being aggrieved by the second articles of charges dated 15.07.2004 and the second enquiry report dated 15.04.2005 has filed this writ petition. 3. Heard arguments on both the sides and perused the entire writ papers. 4. The Supreme Court and this Court in several cases interpreted statutes relating to enquiry, further enquiry, disagreeing with the enquiry and re-enquiry. In the case of K.R.Deb Vs The Collector Of Central Excise, Shillong AIR 1971 SC 1447 (V 58C 297) the Supreme Court held as under:- 13. 4. The Supreme Court and this Court in several cases interpreted statutes relating to enquiry, further enquiry, disagreeing with the enquiry and re-enquiry. In the case of K.R.Deb Vs The Collector Of Central Excise, Shillong AIR 1971 SC 1447 (V 58C 297) the Supreme Court held 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. 14. In our view the rules do not contemplate an action such as was taken by the Collector on February 13, 1962. It seems to us that the Collector, instead of taking responsibility himself, was determined to get some officer to report against the appellant. The procedure adopted was not only not warranted by the rules but was harassing to the appellant. In the case of Union Of India Vs K.D. Pandey And Another (2002) 10 SCC 471 , it is held as under:- "5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in this case the Board had examined the material on record and come to the conclusion that four of the six charges could be proved on the available material, which had not been properly examined in the earlier inquiry. In fact from the order made by the Railway Board as well as from that part of the file where the inquiry report made earlier is discussed, it is clear that specific findings have been given in respect of each of the charges after discussing the matter and, if that is so, we fail to understand as lo how there could have been a remit to the inquiry authority for further inquiry. Indeed this resulted in second inquiry and not in a further inquiry on the same set of charges and the material on record. If this process is allowed the inquiries can go on perpetually until the view of the inquiry authority is in accord with that of the disciplinary authority and it would be abuse of the process of law. In that view of the matter we think that the order made by the High Court affirming the order of the Tribunal is just and proper and, therefore, we decline to interfere with the same. The appeal is dismissed accordingly”. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of C.D. Prabhu vs Deputy Commissioner, Mangalore & Another Mysore L.J 1969 (1) 405 held as under:- "If a disciplinary proceeding is commenced with respect to an accusation and that disciplinary proceeding has reached the stage when the enquiry has been completed, that disciplinary proceeding must be continued and must end either in the imposition of a punishment or in exoneration. If that disciplinary proceeding has not been terminated in that way, the commencement of another disciplinary proceeding with respect to those charges is incompetent". A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Disciplinary Authority And Superintending Engineer Vs H.V. Nagaraja ILR 2006 Karnataka 3299 held as under:- "Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having considered the materials placed on record, we can only sympathise with the inefficiency and callousness on the part of the Disciplinary Authority which issued Annexure – D order. Wisdom dawned late only when the Disciplinary Authority received information about the writ petition and became aware of the contention in the writ petition. At such belated stage, the Disciplinary Authority cannot be allowed to plug the loophole in the earlier order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Annexure R1 order is seen issued on the wrong premise that the earlier enquiry was not complete and that further enquiry was ordered to complete the incomplete enquiry. The material placed on record show that the evidence in the earlier enquiry proceedings had been closed and the enquiry had been completed by the Enquiry Officer and on the basis of the evidence adduced, the Enquiry Officer concluded that the charges against the writ petitioner were not proved. The material placed on record show that the evidence in the earlier enquiry proceedings had been closed and the enquiry had been completed by the Enquiry Officer and on the basis of the evidence adduced, the Enquiry Officer concluded that the charges against the writ petitioner were not proved. Thereafter, it is not open to the Disciplinary Authority to describe the enquiry as incomplete enquiry and an to direct the so-called further enquiry by another Enquiry Officer. We have no doubt in our mind that Annexure R1 is a desperate attempt to come out of the difficult situation confronted by the respondent in the writ petition. Hence the Learned Single Judge was right and justified in allowing the writ petition. 5. Keeping in mind the law laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court in the decisions referred to above, it is necessary to examine the fact situation in the instant case. 6. A reading of the Regulations manifestly makes it clear that the Disciplinary Authority is entitled to initiate enquiry proceedings if it is not satisfied with the explanation of the delinquent employee. Further, it is open for the Disciplinary Authority to direct further enquiry in the matter if it is found that serious defects have crept in the enquiry or some important witnesses were not available at the time of enquiry or were not examined for some other reasons and if in the discretion of the Disciplinary Authority if it is necessary to record further evidence. Further it is open for the Disciplinary Authority to disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer and to arrive at a different conclusion on the basis of the evidence available in the enquiry proceedings. But certainly, the Disciplinary Authority had no jurisdiction to initiate a re-enquiry or a fresh enquiry in respect of the very same charges. 7. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the charges leveled in the first articles of charges dated 20.12.2002 and the second articles of charges dated 15.07.2004 are same. Further it is not in dispute that in respect of first articles of charges, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 27.09.2002 stating that the charges leveled against the petitioner has not been established. Further it is not in dispute that the Disciplinary Authority has neither accepted the report of the enquiry officer dated 27.09.2002 nor disagreed with the same. Further it is not in dispute that in respect of first articles of charges, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 27.09.2002 stating that the charges leveled against the petitioner has not been established. Further it is not in dispute that the Disciplinary Authority has neither accepted the report of the enquiry officer dated 27.09.2002 nor disagreed with the same. Surprisingly, the Disciplinary Authority in the second articles of charges dated 15.07.2004 states that it had withdrawn the first articles of charges dated 20.02.2002 and initiates a fresh inquiry proceedings. This act on the part of the Disciplinary Authority is impermissible under regulations and the same is without jurisdiction. Consequently, the findings of the second enquiry officer are vitiated. For the reasons stated above, the following:- ORDER The writ petition is hereby allowed. The impugned articles of charges dated 15.07.2004 and the enquiry report dated 21.04.2005 are hereby quashed. However liberty is reserved to the Disciplinary Authority to act on the first enquiry report dated 27.09..2002 in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.