JUDGMENT Heard Mr. H.G.S Parihar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Meenakshi Singh Parihar and Nikhil Singh, learned Advocates for the petitioner as well as learned Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has assailed the office orders dated 29.6.2016, 10.01.2017 and 20.01.2017, passed by the opposite party nos.1 and 3, whereby the Secretary of Cultural Department, State Government has taken a decision to re-inquire the matter. Mr. H.G.S Parihar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner through chargesheet dated 22.01.2009 had been inquired, which were based on a preliminary inquiry report dated 01.06.2007 and since those charges had not been found proved, the Inquiry Officer had submitted the report to that effect. The same was also acknowledged by the Supreme Court, on submission of the petitioner in SLP No. 8250 of 2009 and the special leave petition was disposed of on 12.01.2016, by making the interim order absolute as this Court by means of interim order had stayed the suspension, however, the inquiry was opened to be concluded. Accordingly, the inquiry had been concluded. When the inquiry report reached the Disciplinary Authority he examined it and took a decision to put the matter under re-inquiry, though the reasons of re-inquiry have not been disclosed in the matter impugned. It has been asserted that since another preliminary inquiry was conducted and in the meanwhile a report was submitted on 11.06.2012, which was not noticed by the Inquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority took a decision to re-inquire the matter in the light of the findings of the said preliminary inquiry report. The Preliminary Inquiry Report dated 11.06.2012 has also been brought on record. We are of the view that the definitely that may be basis for issuing the supplementary charge-sheet to the petitioner for further inquiry but after perusal of the said inquiry report, we find nothing adverse against the petitioner inasmuch as no adverse material has been pointed out against the petitioner, which may be the basis for re-inquiry, particularly involving any financial irregularities/misappropriation committed by the petitioner. Therefore, we are of the view that if the Disciplinary Authority is permitted to proceed with the inquiry report on the basis of the inquiry report dated 11.06.2012, it would be complete futile exercise as well as unnecessary harassment of the petitioner to put her under inquiry. Therefore, we are of the view that if the Disciplinary Authority is permitted to proceed with the inquiry report on the basis of the inquiry report dated 11.06.2012, it would be complete futile exercise as well as unnecessary harassment of the petitioner to put her under inquiry. Therefore, we arrive at conclusion that the decisions impugned taken by the respondents are unsustainable. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 29.06.2016, 10.01.2017 and 20.01.2017 are hereby quashed with liberty to the Disciplinary Authority to pass final order on the basis of inquiry report dated 06.09.2015 submitted earlier. We are informed that the petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2014 and due to pendency of the Departmental Proceedings no post retiral dues have been released to her till date, therefore, we feel it necessary to observe that since we have quashed the orders impugned, now the Disciplinary Authority has to take a final decision on the basis of inquiry report dated 06.09.2015 within two months and thereafter, the post retiral dues of the petitioner shall be released accordingly.