Judgment :- 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order Na.Ka.4951/2012/O.Na.3 dated 19.03.2012 passed by the 1st respondent as also the consequential order passed by the 2nd respondent in pursuance to the direction issued by the 1st respondent, with further prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus to restore the original order passed by the 2nd respondent. 2. The petitioner was selected through Public Service Commission. He joined in the office of the Deputy Registrar, Co-op. Societies, Vellore on 20.08.1980 and was subsequently promoted as Junior Inspector on 01.05.1984. The petitioner was thereafter promoted as Senior Inspector on 01.06.1986 and Co-operative Sub-Registrar on 20.10.1996. 3. On 05.01.2010, a charge memo was issued to petitioner, regarding misconduct of issuance of short term loan to the members of the Vinnamangalam PACC Society. This was based on the anonymous complaint to the respondent no.4. 4. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charges, which was not accepted and accordingly, an enquiry officer was appointed to look into the charges. It is not disputed, that the enquiry officer held the petitioner guilty of charges, levelled against petitioner. The respondent no.2, being competent authority, issued show cause notice to petitioner with proposed penalty along with a copy of the enquiry report. 5. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the enquiry report. The competent authority accepted the explanation given by petitioner, and did not agree with the finding of the enquiry officer, thus, exonerated the petitioner of the charges. 6. It is submitted by petitioner, that respondent no.1 thereafter exercised suo motu power under the rules to pass the impugned order, ordering de novo enquiry against petitioner. In pursuance to the direction issued by respondent no.1, respondent no.2 has now initiated de novo enquiry. 7. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by respondent no.1 and consequential order passed by respondent no.2, on the ground, that before exercising suo motu power under the rules, no notice was issued to petitioner. 8. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, that the impugned order, being in violation of principle of natural justice, as also the rules governing exercise of suo motu power cannot be sustained in law. 9. 8. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, that the impugned order, being in violation of principle of natural justice, as also the rules governing exercise of suo motu power cannot be sustained in law. 9. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, that though the appellate authority in exercise of suo motu power has right to differ and pass appropriate order after giving opportunity of hearing to petitioner, but could not order de novo enquiry only for want of concurrence from the the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption / 4th respondent. 10. Learned Additional Government Pleader opposed this writ petition, on the ground that the charge of corruption against petitioner stood proved in the enquiry, therefore, the appellate authority rightly came to the conclusion, that the order of the competent authority, i.e. respondent no.2 was not sustainable in law. 11. It is also the contention of learned Additional Government Pleader, that de novo enquiry has been ordered in the interest of petitioner to give him full opportunity to defend himself. The enquiry officer had found the petitioner guilty of charges, therefore, the order being in the interest of petitioner, it does not call for any interference. 12. On consideration, I find force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondent no.1 in exercise of suo motu power was statutorily required to issue show cause notice to petitioner, giving reasons for exercise of power. He was also required to follow principle of natural justice. The appellate authority had no jurisdiction to pass adverse order against petitioner at his back. 13. There is also force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, that de novo enquiry would not be ordered merely on asking, unless findings of enquiry officer were likely to fail on technical defect, or where enquiry officer had not conducted enquiry in accordance with rules or by following natural justice. 14. The competent authority disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer by giving reason thereof, therefore, the appellate authority, if wanted to differ, was required to give reason and ask for explanation from the petitioner. Merely on the ground, that no concurrence was taken from the respondent no.4 cannot be the ground to order de novo enquiry. 15. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. Merely on the ground, that no concurrence was taken from the respondent no.4 cannot be the ground to order de novo enquiry. 15. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside, and the case is remitted back to respondent no.1 to take a fresh decision in accordance with law, if so advised, after issuing of notice and giving opportunity of hearing to petitioner. 16. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.