Judgment :- 1. These writ petitions have been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1st respondent in G.O.(ID) No.122, School Education (U2) Department Dated 07.06.2005 and the letter bearing No.5279/U2/2004-19 dated 7.6.2005 and quash the orders. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that, when the petitioners were issued with charge memo by the third respondent calling upon the petitioners, to submit their explanations to the charges levelled against them regarding the malpractices took place in the examination, they submitted their explanations. Since, the explanations furnished by the petitioners were not satisfactory, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges and thereafter, the enquiry was conducted on 1.4.2004 against all the petitioners. After completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 14.04.2004 to the third respondent. After receipt of the enquiry report, the third respondent also passed an order dated 17.4.2004, revoking the suspension order and finally all the petitioners were reinstated in service. Accordingly, the petitioners also joined duty with in a couple of days. Though, there were 12 persons implicated by the Flying Squad which conducted an inspection at Thiruvallur on 3.2.2004, however, after completion of the enquiry, when the enquiry Officer submitted his reports, the third respondent also passed an order by revoking the suspension orders and all the petitioners were reinstated in service after a period of 2 1/2 of months. When, the third respondent obliged to pass the final orders on the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules after furnishing a copy of the enquiry report and calling upon further explanations to the findings of the enquiry report, all of a sudden, the Government has issued G.O. (ID) No.122, School Education (U2) dated 7.6.2005, directing the initiation of another proceedings against all 12 persons including the petitioners in a common proceeding by appointing the Secretary to Government, School Education Department to function as the disciplinary authority, with powers to impose any of the penalties stipulated under the rules. Along with the State Government Order, the first respondent has also issued a charge memo bearing letter No.5279/U2/2004-19 dated 7.6.2005 alleging the same said of charges for which, the third respondent had already initiated disciplinary proceedings and conducted an enquiry. Along with the State Government Order, the first respondent has also issued a charge memo bearing letter No.5279/U2/2004-19 dated 7.6.2005 alleging the same said of charges for which, the third respondent had already initiated disciplinary proceedings and conducted an enquiry. Aggrieved by the initiation of the second disciplinary proceedings, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that though the petitioners were subjected to disciplinary proceedings by the third respondent, no doubt, they are entitled to proceed against the petitioners after the submission of the enquiry report by the Enquiry Officer. But, in the present case, after the submission of the report by the Enquiry Officer, the third respondent revoked the suspension orders and reinstated all the petitioners in service. While so, the initiation of the second enquiry proceedings without publishing the final report of enquiry proceedings by the third respondent, is violative of the rules and therefore, it was urged the same is liable to be set aside. 4. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would take strong reliance from a Judgment of Supreme Court reported in AIR 1971 SC 1447 (K.R.Deb Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Shillong) and two other judgments of this Court reported in (2007) 5 MLJ 384 (S.Duraisingh Gangatharan Vs.Engineer in Chief, Water Resource Organization) and another judgment reported in 1997 (1) SLR (M.Kolandai Gounder Vs. The Divisional Engineer, T.N.E.B.) 5. On the basis of the above said submissions, supported by the judgment of this Court, the learned counsel prayed for quashing the initiation of second disciplinary proceedings on the ground that against the same said of charges, since the petitioners have already subjected to enquiry that was already conducted at the instance of the Disciplinary Authorities, there is no provision in the rules for a second inquiry in respect of the same set of facts and charges. 6. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit fairly that though the disciplinary authority is entitled to take its own view on the basis of the completion of the first enquiry proceedings, the initiation of second disciplinary proceedings on the same said of charges may be set aside but, with liberty to proceed against the petitioner on the basis of the first enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. On this context, the Apex Court in K.R.Deb Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Shillong reported in 1971 2 SCC 102 has also held that if there is no provision for holding second enquiry, the previous enquiries can not be completely set aside on the ground that the report of the Enquiry Officer does not appeal to the Disciplinary Authority, when the Disciplinary Authority has enough powers to reconsider the evidence itself and come to its own conclusion. The only point raised before me was that after the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings initiated by a competent authority, it is not open to the respondent/Government to subject the petitioner to a second enquiry on the same set of facts and charges. It is trite that once an enquiry is conducted and complete by a competent authority, in the absence of any provision in the rule for a second enquiry in respect of the same set of facts and charges, it is not legally permissible for the Government to subject an employee to face a second enquiry. 7. Further, on the basis of the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate, this Court is of the considered view that the present impugned order challenged by the petitioners assailing that the third respondent is not illegaly entitled to initiate second enquiry proceedings against the same said of charges for which, the third respondent has not only conducted domestic enquiry against the petitioners, but also conducted the same, I am of the considered view, that without making open the result of the enquiry proceedings, it is not open to the first respondent to order for second enquiry as there is no rule, and therefore, the second disciplinary proceedings initiated by the respondents is liable to be set aside, accordingly, the same is set aside. But, it is needless to mention that the respondents are entitled to proceed against the petitioner on the basis of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. With the above observation, the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs.