JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner was an Assistant Engineer at the relevant moment of time in the U.P. State Electricity Board now known as U.P. Power Corporation Limited. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 27.01.2001. The petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges. An enquiry was instituted and an enquiry report was submitted. The enquiry officer found that he was not guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority accepted the findings of the enquiry report but forwarded it to the State Government for approval from the State Vigilance Department. The State Vigilance Department thereafter made a fresh enquiry and found the petitioner to be guilty of the charges. Based on this report submitted by the State Vigilance Department, a punishment order was passed which has been questioned in the present writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once an enquiry report has been submitted in which the petitioner had been exonerated of the charges, the disciplinary authority had no power to forward it to the State Government for a fresh enquiry by the State Vigilance Department unless the disciplinary authority disagreed with the enquiry report which in the instant case had not been done. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the action taken by the disciplinary authority to forward it to the State Government to conduct an enquiry by the State Vigilance Department pursuant to the Government Order dated 11.10.1990 was not proper as the Government Order was not applicable. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the Government Order dated 11.10.1990 has been issued in exercise of the powers conferred upon the State Government by Section 78 A of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. This Government Order stipulates, that where an enquiry has been conducted by the State Vigilance Department then, in that case, disciplinary action should be taken by the Department against the officers or the employees. There is no quarrel about the instructions given in the Government Order dated 11.10.1990, but we find it strange that this Government Order has been used as an aid to get a fresh enquiry conducted which in our view is not permissible for the following reasons. 4. In the instant case, we find that the petitioner was served departmentally with a charge sheet. He submitted a reply. A domestic enquiry was instituted against him. 4. In the instant case, we find that the petitioner was served departmentally with a charge sheet. He submitted a reply. A domestic enquiry was instituted against him. The enquiry officer after conducting the enquiry proceedings submitted an enquiry report exonerating the petitioner from all the charges. The said enquiry report was placed before the disciplinary authority who accepted the report but for reasons best known forwarded the enquiry report to the State Vigilance 5. Department for its recommendation in accordance with the Government Order dated 11.10.1990. 6. In our view the disciplinary authority could not have forwarded the report of the enquiry officer to the State Vigilance Department for a reconfirmation as in our view there is no such provision in the Government Order. Once the disciplinary authority accepts the enquiry report then he is required to pass an order exonerating the petitioner of the charges levelled against him. In the event, the disciplinary authority did not agree with the findings of the enquiry report then he should have, after recording the disagreement, order the enquiry officer to re-conduct the enquiry on the grounds mentioned therein or could have referred the matter to the State Government to conduct a fresh enquiry through the State Vigilance Department. The disciplinary authority after having accepted the enquiry report could not have refer the matter to the State Vigilance Department. 7. Thus, the enquiry report conducted by the State Vigilance Department, and consequently, the order of punishment passed on the basis of this enquiry report was totally without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. 8. The impugned order is, therefore, quashed and the writ petition is allowed.