Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to declare the entire domestic enquiry proceedings, dated 7.4.2012 as null and void. 2. The petitioner, who was working as a Driver in the respondent Transport Corporation, was involved in an accident while he was driving a vehicle on 13.3.2012. On account of the said accident, the person who met with the accident died. It was stated that the petitioner due to his negligence caused the death of that person. A charge memo, dated 7.4.2012 was framed against him. Subsequently, after conducting an enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of charges and had filed his report dated 24.10.2012. Thereafter, a memo was given on 02.11.2012 asking the petitioner as to why the department should not accept the enquiry report. 3. The petitioner gave his explanation, dated 08.11.2012. In the explanation, he had objected to the findings of the enquiry officer. However, the respondent by a memo dated 24.12.2012 stated that since they had already received the enquiry report holding the petitioner guilty and after examining his explanation it was found necessary to examine one C.Sukumar of Press Colony, Coimbatore, who was said to be an eyewitness to the accident to be enquired on 03.12.2012, the petitioner was directed to appear for the examination of the additional witness so as to enable him to cross examine the said witness. The petitioner objected to the examination of the additional witness by sending an objection statement, dated 29.12.2012 stating that he wanted to know whether the management had accepted the enquiry report and after knowing the same, he is willing to cross examine the eyewitness Sukumar. The management in its reply, dated 5.1.2013 stated that after he cross examine the additional witness and after rendering further finding, the management will take an appropriate decision. At this stage, the petitioner has rushed to this court challenging the charge memo itself. 4. It is not clear as to how the charge memo can be challenged at this stage, especially when the petitioner had participated in the enquiry and the enquiry officer also found him guilty of charges. The petitioner stated that he only objected to the examination of the additional witness by reopening the enquiry. 4. It is not clear as to how the charge memo can be challenged at this stage, especially when the petitioner had participated in the enquiry and the enquiry officer also found him guilty of charges. The petitioner stated that he only objected to the examination of the additional witness by reopening the enquiry. As to whether a charge memo can be challenged after an enquiry was held, came to be considered by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28 and in paragraph 18, it was observed as follows : "18. We agree with the learned counsel for the respondent that if the charge which has been levelled under the memo dated 23-12-2003 had earlier been enquired into in a regular enquiry by a competent authority, and if the respondent had been exonerated on that very charge, a second enquiry would not be maintainable. However, in the present case, we are of the opinion that the charges levelled against the respondent under the charge memo dated 23-12-2003, had not been enquired into by any authority and he had not been exonerated on those charges. Hence we are of the opinion that it is not a case of double jeopardy." 5. Further, the question as to whether there is any bar for examining an additional witness after completion of the enquiry also came to be considered by the Supreme Court in Kanailal Bera v. Union of India reported in (2007) 11 SCC 517 and in paragraphs 6 and 7, the Supreme Court had observed as follows : "6. The question as to whether a punishment of confinement to Civil Lines could have been directed or not should not detain us as we agree with the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant that the purported order dated 5-4-1995 of the disciplinary authority was unsustainable in law. Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, inter alia, lays down the procedure for conducting a departmental inquiry. Once a disciplinary proceeding has been initiated, the same must be brought to its logical end meaning thereby a finding is required to be arrived at as to whether the delinquent officer is guilty of charges levelled against him or not. Once a disciplinary proceeding has been initiated, the same must be brought to its logical end meaning thereby a finding is required to be arrived at as to whether the delinquent officer is guilty of charges levelled against him or not. In a given situation further evidences may be directed to be adduced but the same would not mean that despite holding a delinquent officer to be partially guilty of the charges levelled against him another inquiry would be directed to be initiated on the selfsame charges which could not be proved in the first inquiry. 7. In K.R. Deb v. CCE this Court while considering the provisions contained in Rule 15 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 held as under: (SCC p. 105, paras 12-13) “12. 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. 13. In our view the Rules do not contemplate an action such as was taken by the Collector on 13-2-1962. 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.”" (Emphasis added) In the cases cited what was objected to was the disciplinary authority totally setting aside the enquiry report and ordering a fresh enquiry, instead of calling for additional evidence. In the present case, the enquiry report is yet to be accepted by the disciplinary authority. They only wanted an eye witness to the accident to be examined and that decision was taken even before completion of the enquiry. In the present case, the enquiry report is yet to be accepted by the disciplinary authority. They only wanted an eye witness to the accident to be examined and that decision was taken even before completion of the enquiry. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved person. 6. Hence the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.