ORDER : 1. The petitioner is aggrieved of initiation of a de novo enquiry by an order contained in Resolution dated 01.09.2016. The consequential order dated 27.09.2016 has also been impugned by the petitioner in the present proceeding. 2. Heard. 3. Raising a question of jurisdiction of the Government to initiate a fresh enquiry/de novo enquiry on the same set of charges after submission of an enquiry report, Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the law does not permit a second enquiry on the grounds mentioned in Resolution dated 01.09.2016. As against the above, Mr. Rajesh Kumar the learned G.P.-V contends that when the enquiry report was found not satisfactory, a fresh enquiry was ordered which, in view of the fact that neither the charge-memo is under challenge nor the enquiry report dated 30.10.2015 has been challenged by the petitioner, cannot be challenged by the petitioner. It is submitted that the fresh enquiry shall also be conducted in terms of the extant rules and following the principles of natural justice and while so, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. Referring to the charge-memo dated 16.04.2015 and the Resolution dated 01.09.2016, the learned State counsel states that a fresh enquiry has been ordered on an amended charge-memo. 4. At this stage itself it needs to be recorded that the so-called amended charge-memo has not been served upon the petitioner and, in fact, after submission of the enquiry report, without any legal or factual basis, the charge-memo cannot be amended to the prejudice of the delinquent officer, who has already exposed his defence. The respondents in their anxiety to support the Resolution dated 01.09.2016 have already found the petitioner guilty of dereliction of duty and negligence, as would appear from Paragraph no.22 of the counter-affidavit. It is also pertinent to note that in the counter-affidavit, except stating that the petitioner did not verify the Medicine Stocks and the Distribution Register and having failed to lodge a criminal case has thus committed misconduct, the respondents have not challenged the stand taken by the petitioner. It is merely stated that the stand taken by the petitioner in different paragraphs in the writ-petition are either matters of record or do not require comments. It is merely stated that the stand taken by the petitioner in different paragraphs in the writ-petition are either matters of record or do not require comments. If one reads the stand taken in the writ-petition, in the light of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-State the writ-petition deserves to be allowed without entering into the merits of the case, still, considering the plea raised by the learned State counsel I am inclined to examine the matter on merits. 5. Resolution dated 01.09.2016 would disclose that a decision to initiate a fresh departmental proceeding was taken only on the ground that the enquiry report is not clear (aspast). The enquiry report incidentally runs into 62 pages and, it, in no uncertain terms, records that the charges framed against the delinquent officer are not proved. What more would be the clarity in the enquiry report is only known to the respondent-authority. The law does not take cognizance of such frivolous pretentions. In a departmental proceeding after submission of an enquiry report the disciplinary authority is required to serve a copy of the enquiry report upon the delinquent-officer and if the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings recorded in the enquiry report, he, in law, is under a duty to record his disagreement in writing and serve a copy of the same to the delinquent officer. Not only this, even when the disciplinary authority agrees with the findings recorded by the inquiring officer, still, a copy of the enquiry report must be served upon the delinquent officer. Law on this issue has been elaborately dealt with in “Punjab National Bank & Ors. vs Kunj Behari Misra” reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 . The rationale behind this is very simple. The purpose is to give an opportunity to the delinquent officer to try to pursuade the disciplinary authority to agree with the favourable findings recorded in the enquiry report. However, law in certain contingencies also permits the employer to conduct a fresh/de novo enquiry. The situations are well-defined in various judgments of the Supreme Court. Only in cases where the department could not produce a material witness for justifiable reasons or an important document which would have a material bearing on the out come of the domestic enquiry could not be produced, a further enquiry can be ordered. The situations are well-defined in various judgments of the Supreme Court. Only in cases where the department could not produce a material witness for justifiable reasons or an important document which would have a material bearing on the out come of the domestic enquiry could not be produced, a further enquiry can be ordered. However, a fresh enquiry/de novo enquiry can be ordered only where the enquiry proceeding proceeded in breach of the rules of natural justice or it suffers from a serious lacuna. None of the situations, as one can find in judgments of Supreme Court in “K.R. Deb Vs. the Collector of Central Excise, Shillong” reported in (1971) 2 SCC 102 and “Nand Kumar Verma Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others” reported in (2012) 3 SCC 580 , can be found in the Resolution dated 01.09.2016. In K.R. Deb case, it was pointed out that if due to some serious defect which crept into the enquiry such as, the enquiry was held not properly or due to unavailability or for some other reason important witnesses were not examined, the disciplinary authority may ask the enquiry officer to record further evidence. In “Nand Kumar Verma”, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while examining a plea whether on the same set of charges a second enquiry is permissible or not, held as under : 26. “............... On general principles, there can be only one enquiry in respect of a charge for a particular misconduct and that is also what the rules usually provide. If, for some technical or other good ground, procedural or otherwise, the first enquiry or punishment or exoneration is found bad in law, there is no principle that a second enquiry cannot be initiated. Therefore, when a completed enquiry proceedings is set aside by a competent forum on a technical or on the ground of procedural infirmity, fresh proceedings on the same charges is permissible.” 6. As noticed above, only on the ground that the enquiry report is not clear, which otherwise is as clear as crystal, the Resolution dated 01.09.2016 has been issued. What follows from the above discussions is, that the Resolution dated 01.09.2016 cannot sustain in law and, accordingly, it is quashed. No fresh proceeding against the petitioner under the same set of charges shall be initiated. 7. The writ-petition stands allowed.