ORDER : The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.03.2016, passed by the Managing Director, Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Limited (“KS & DL", for short), whereby the Managing Director has discarded the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, and appointed a fresh Enquiry Officer, and has directed a fresh enquiry against the petitioner. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner had completed his B.Sc. and M.Sc. in Chemistry. The petitioner was eligible to be appointed on the post of Junior Officer in the respondent-Company. On 16.10.2012, the respondent-Company issued an advertisement inviting applications for filling up the backlog vacancies. Since the petitioner was eligible for the said post, he applied for the same. By order dated 26.05.2014, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Junior Officer. However, subsequently, the respondent-Company was informed by the Superintendent of Police, Mandya, that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case under Section 408 IPC, and was facing a trial for the same. Therefore, on 19.12.2014, the respondent issued a notice to the petitioner requiring him to show-cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for having submitted a false statement that there were no criminal cases pending against him at the time he had sought appointment with the Company. Immediately on 08.01.2015, the petitioner submitted his reply, wherein he claimed that since he has not been convicted by any Court of Law, and since the column in the application had merely sought information with regard to conviction, and not with regard to pendency of criminal trial, he has truthfully stated that he has not been convicted. However, after receiving the petitioner’s reply, by order dated 21.01.2015, the petitioner was discharged from the post of Junior Officer inter-alia on the ground that he has suppressed relevant facts from the Company. 3. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the discharge order dated 21.01.2015, he filed a writ petition before this Court, namely W.P.No.3517/. By order dated 23.11.2015, this Court set aside the discharge order, but did not directed that the petitioner be reinstated. For, at the relevant time, the petitioner was merely appointed on probation, and had not completed his probationary period. But, this Court did direct the respondent to complete the enquiry proceedings within a period of six weeks. 4. Consequently, on 08.01.2016, the respondent issued a charge memo to the petitioner. For, at the relevant time, the petitioner was merely appointed on probation, and had not completed his probationary period. But, this Court did direct the respondent to complete the enquiry proceedings within a period of six weeks. 4. Consequently, on 08.01.2016, the respondent issued a charge memo to the petitioner. After completing the enquiry, on 06.02.2016, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report, wherein he exonerated the petitioner of the charges leveled against him. But, instead of acting on the report of the Enquiry Officer, by letter dated 25.03.2016, the Managing Director has informed the petitioner that the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer is discarded and Mr. B. M. Angadi, a retired District and Sessions Judge, has been appointed as the Enquiry Officer for holding a fresh enquiry. Hence, this petition before this Court. 5. Mr. Sathish, the learned counsel for petitioner has raised the following contentions before this court: Firstly, once the petitioner has been exonerated by the Enquiry Officer, the Managing Director is not justified in directing that fresh enquiry should be held against the petitioner. Since the Enquiry Officer had exonerated the petitioner, the only course left for the Disciplinary Authority was to agree or to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, and to pass necessary orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Secondly, even if the respondent claim that they have received certain documents from the petitioner’s previous employer, a fresh charge needs to be framed. At this juncture, the Enquiry Officer could not have been appointed without framing fresh charges. Therefore, the letter dated 25.03.2016 is legally unsustainable. 6. On the other hand, Mr. M.R.C. Ravi, the learned counsel for respondent, submits that since the respondent had received certain documents from the previous employer clearly stating that the petitioner was dismissed from the service due to allegation of criminal breach of trust and misappropriation, the respondent decided to hold a fresh enquiry against the petitioner. However, the learned counsel has frankly conceded, and in view of this court rightly so, that the Enquiry Officer could not be appointed until and unless fresh charges were framed against the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, fresh charges could not be framed against the petitioner as he had rushed to this court immediately after receiving the letter dated 25.03.2016. Hence, the learned counsel has tried to support the letter dated 25.03.2016. 7. According to the learned counsel, fresh charges could not be framed against the petitioner as he had rushed to this court immediately after receiving the letter dated 25.03.2016. Hence, the learned counsel has tried to support the letter dated 25.03.2016. 7. It is, indeed, a settled principle of law that in case the Enquiry Officer were to exonerate the delinquent officer, the Disciplinary Authority is free to disagree with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, and to pass necessary orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent officer. 8. In case there is new material that is brought to the notice of the Disciplinary Authority, and the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that on the basis of new material, a fresh enquiry needs to be initiated against the delinquent officer, then the Disciplinary Authority is required to first frame a set of fresh charges and furnish the same to the delinquent officer. It is only after receiving the reply of the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority is required to take a decision whether to proceed with the enquiry, or not. It is only after finding the reply unconvincing, the Disciplinary Authority would be well within its jurisdiction to appoint an Enquiry Officer. But, before an Enquiry Officer can be appointed, a fresh chargesheet has to be furnished to the petitioner. In the present case, the said procedure has not been followed by the respondent. Instead, the respondent, without issuing a fresh charge-sheet, has appointed Mr. B.M. Angadi, a retired District & Sessions Judge as the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, the letter dated 25.03.2016, is clearly unsustainable. 9. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is hereby allowed, and the letter dated 25.03.2016 is quashed and set aside. 10. However, the respondent shall be free to initiate a fresh departmental enquiry against the petitioner, but strictly in accordance with law.