JUDGMENT : B.P. Das, J. - The Petitioner in this writ application has challenged the Order Dated passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 728 of 2004 under Annexure-8 as being contrary to the statutory provisions of law. 2. The brief fact narrated in the writ application tends to reveal as thus: The Petitioner, while working as Superintendent of Excise, Cuttack, for a period of eight months, a liquor tragedy occurred in Cuttack city in the year 1992. Thereafter a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner under Rule-15 of the Orissa Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1962 ("CCA Rules" in short) on the allegation of the following charges: (1) Gross negligence in duty, (2) Lack of supervision, (3) Gross misconduct, (4) Criminal conspiracy & showing undue favour to a private person, (5) Violation of statutory Act & Rules & (6) Connivance & abatement in committing offences under the law. The Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries-cum-Addl. Secretary to Govt. in General Administration Department, (hereinafter "C.D.I.") was appointed as Inquiring Officer to inquire into the aforesaid charges. After inquiry, the C.D.I submitted his inquiry report dated 18.9.2002 recommending to exonerate the Petitioner from the charges on the ground that during the period of suspension he had been superannuated from service. The C.D.I further found that the Petitioner was not negligent in his duty. The Disciplinary Authority, however, by his Order Dated 9.6.2004 (Annexure-4), while disagreeing with the findings of the C.D.I. directed for a de novo inquiry. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is quoted herein below: Whereas, after going through the charges, & findings of the Inquiring Officer, the Disciplinary Authority found that in all the proceedings drawn up against the Supdt. of Excise, Deputy Supdt. of Excise & other filed staff who were posted at Cuttack during the liquor tragedy 1992, the Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries was appointed as Inquiring Officer & recommended punishment in respect of all officers & staff, it has been recommended to exonerate the Delinquent Officer Sri Jalandhar Pradhan, who was the Supdt. of Excise, Cuttack. The Inquiring Officer has recommended to fully exonerate the Delinquent Officer from the charges. of Excise, Cuttack. The Inquiring Officer has recommended to fully exonerate the Delinquent Officer from the charges. It has not been spelt out how the charges of negligence in duty, lack of supervision & connivance on the part of the D.O. has not been established; & whereas, the Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the recommendation of the Inquiring Officer & decided to remand the case to the Inquiring Officer for fresh enquiry; Now, therefore, the proceeding No. 733/Ex -Dt. 16.3.96 is remanded to the Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries to conduct fresh enquiry & the Deputy Commissioner of Excise (CD) Cuttack will continue as Marshalling Officer as before to adduce the evidence & present the case in support of the charges. The Petitioner challenged the aforesaid order of the Disciplinary Authority before the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 728 of 2004. The Tribunal by its Order Dated 30.4.2007 (Annexure-8) while dismissing the Original Application, at paragraph -6 of the said order held thus: A reading of the enquiry report indeed can lead to a doubt as to how the' CDI reached the conclusion without adequate evidence. As a matter of fact the CDI appears to have gone beyond the point on which the enquiry was being made even when no evidence was available. So I do not find anything wrong in the Annexure-4 orders by which a re-enquiry was ordered. This order has been passed "by order of Governor" by the Principal Secretary to Government & be allowed to run its course. This writ application has been filed against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that there is no provision under the Statute for a de novo inquiry. The direction for de novo inquiry is erroneous & beyond the scope & purview of the CCA Rules. In this regard, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner draws our attention to a decision of this Court in the case of Gokha Behera Vs. Principal Secretary, Law Department and Others, in paragraph-13 of which it has been observed that the law can be summarized that generally de novo or fresh inquiry is permissible only if the Statute so provides. In this regard, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner draws our attention to a decision of this Court in the case of Gokha Behera Vs. Principal Secretary, Law Department and Others, in paragraph-13 of which it has been observed that the law can be summarized that generally de novo or fresh inquiry is permissible only if the Statute so provides. But in case a departmental proceeding suffers from some fundamental procedural error, i.e. evidence has not been properly recorded or material witnesses were not available or they were not in a position to depose or the delinquent or the department had not been Permitted to cross-examine any of the witnesses, in such a situation de novo inquiry is permissible. 4. Learned Counsel for the State, on the. other hand, relies upon a Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. P. Thayagarajan, wherein it was held that under Rule 27(c) (6) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act a fresh or de novo inquiry is permissible in case when important evidence, either to be relied upon by the department or by the delinquent official, is shut out, as the same would not result in any advancement of justice but on the other hand result in a miscarriage thereof. 5. A bare perusal of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court as well as of this Court, the irresistible conclusion is that even if there is no provision under the Statute, i.e. the CCA Rules, the Disciplinary Authority can direct for a de novo inquiry while disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiring Officer, but the same can be done under the circumstances indicated in the case of Thayagarajan (supra). In the case of Gokha Behera (supra), this Court while deciding the case, referred to several decisions of the Apex Court starting from K.R. Deb Vs. The Collector of Central Excise, Shillong, . 6. Learned Counsel for the State drawing our attention to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State through the Under Secretary to Government, Excise Department, Bhubaneswar submits that for deciding the issue, paragraph-4 is relevant, which is extracted herein below: The averments made in para-3(c) is not correct. It is humbly submitted that the Petitioner was working as Superintendent of Excise, Cuttack at the time of Cuttack hooch tragedy. It is humbly submitted that the Petitioner was working as Superintendent of Excise, Cuttack at the time of Cuttack hooch tragedy. After the unprecedented hooch tragedy which took place on 07.05.1992 in Cuttack town, the Petitioner along with other Excise officers were placed under suspension for their negligence in duty, lack of supervision, gross misconduct etc. followed by drawal of disciplinary proceedings as per administrative enquiry report. As per recommendation in the Inquiry Report of Hon'ble Justice B.K. Behera, Commission of Inquiry/fresh disciplinary proceeding was drawn up against the Petitioner vide erstwhile- Revenue & Excise Department order No. 733/ Ex., dt. 16.3.1996 & the proceeding drawn up earlier vide D.P. No. 2318, dt. 14.8.1992 was dropped vide order No. 999/Ex., dt. 18.4.1998 The State has also relied upon the letter dated 15.3.1994 issued by the Special Secretary to Government in General Administration Department on the subject "Clarification in respect of de novo enquiry or fresh enquiry under Orissa Civil Services (C. C. & A) Rules, 1962", the relevant portion of which is extracted herein below: Even if there is no specific provision in the Rules, the Disciplinary Authority can remit/remand the proceedings to the Enquiry Officer if he finds that the enquiry report suffers from some material irregularity. In all such cases, the proceedings have to be remitted back to the very same Enquiry Officer who conducted the enquiry with direction to record further evidence & given findings on each charge. The only exception is that another Enquiry Officer can be appointed where the previous Enquiry. Officer is dead or has retired from Government service or is not available. 7. So, when there is material irregularity, the proceeding can be remitted back to the same Inquiring Officer with a direction to record further evidence & give findings on each charge. There is nothing in the counter affidavit to indicate that the report of the Inquiring Officer in any manner suffers from fundamental procedural error. It is well settled that de novo inquiry cannot be made only if the report does not appeal to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority while giving direction for a de novo inquiry should satisfy itself that there is fundamental procedural error. 8. It is well settled that de novo inquiry cannot be made only if the report does not appeal to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority while giving direction for a de novo inquiry should satisfy itself that there is fundamental procedural error. 8. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid aspect has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal while dismissing the Original application filed by the Petitioner challenging the order of the Disciplinary Authority & as such, we set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 30.4.2007 passed in O.A. No. 728 of 2004 vide Anneuxre-8. We also set aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority & remit the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority to re-consider the inquiry report of the C.D.I. & pass appropriate order in terms of the Judgment as aforesaid, so far as it relates to the present Petitioner. Since the Petitioner has already retired from service in 1999, the entire exercise shall be completed by the Disciplinary Authority as directed above, by the end of June, 2010. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. B.K. Nayak, J. 9. I agree. 10. Writ application allowed Final Result : Allowed