JUDGMENT : K.N. Phaneendra, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 2. The learned counsel for the respondents has filed statement of objections and he has submitted his arguments in support of his statement of objections. 3. The petitioner who is working as Deputy Chief Law Officer in respondent-Corporation has filed this writ petition calling in question the charge sheet issued against him by respondent No. 1 dated 02.02.2017 as per Annexure-E and also consequential constitution of enquiry committee appointing Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges levelled against him as per Annexure-E. The order appointing Enquiry Officer as per Annexure-G is also sought to be quashed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends before this Court that though charge sheet has been issued against the petitioner, the respondents themselves are not sure with regard to the nature of conducing of the writ petitions in W.P. No. 100200/2013 and other connected matters. It is further contended that after communication of the charge list to the petitioner, he has filed a very detailed objection to the same raising legal and factual questions. Without even looking into the said objections, a bald order has been passed by respondent No. 1 appointing an Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner. It is contended that enquiry arises only after the respondents express their dissatisfaction on the legal and factual aspects raised in the objection statement and after satisfying that the truth or falsity of the charges levelled has to be ascertained by appointing an Enquiry Officer. Unless satisfaction of the respondents is apparent on the face of the order, such an order cannot be passed appointing an Enquiry Officer and the same is against to the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that, after going through the entire objections filed to the charge list, the respondents have expressed their dissatisfaction and only for the purpose of ascertaining truth or falsity of the allegations, an enquiry was ordered to be conducted. If the petitioner has not committed any misconduct, he has no reason to afraid of the enquiry. Therefore, the order passed by the respondents as per Annexures-E and G are valid and this Court cannot interfere with the said orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. If the petitioner has not committed any misconduct, he has no reason to afraid of the enquiry. Therefore, the order passed by the respondents as per Annexures-E and G are valid and this Court cannot interfere with the said orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. In the wake of the above submissions, before adverting to the legality of the orders passed, it is just and necessary to bear in mind few facts of the case. There is no dispute that the petitioner has been working as Deputy Chief Law Officer in the respondent- Corporation. It is alleged that on 26.06.2015, the Security and Vigilance Officer submitted a report regarding the manner of the petitioner instructing the concerned counsel in conducting writ petitions in W.P. No. 100200/2013 and other connected matters and also filing review petitions before the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench. Respondent No. 2, after due consideration of report submitted by the Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 24.07.2015 as per Annexure-B directed closure of the above reported allegations. The computerized history sheet of the petitioner on the basis of his service records shows that the said report was ordered to be closed by earlier Managing Director and there is no initiation of disciplinary proceedings as per the order dated 17.11.2015 as per Annexure-C. However, on the same allegations, one more report was submitted on 30.03.2016, on the basis of which, on 02.02.2017 a charge sheet was issued against the petitioner. In fact, charge sheet was supplied to the petitioner herein and he has filed a detailed reply on 13.04.2017 as per Annexure-F. After filing of the said objections, on 08/16.08.2017 as per Annexure-G, the Enquiry Officer was appointed to ascertain truth or falsity of the allegations made in the charge-sheet. 7. The above facts are undisputed. Now the question arises before this Court is as to whether issuance of the charge list itself is bad in law and issuance of order as per Annexure-G appointing an Enquiry Officer consequentially vitiated. 7. The above facts are undisputed. Now the question arises before this Court is as to whether issuance of the charge list itself is bad in law and issuance of order as per Annexure-G appointing an Enquiry Officer consequentially vitiated. Of-course, earlier proceedings on the basis of the report against the petitioner was closed by respondent No. 2 as per Annexure-B. However, based on another report filed on 30.03.2016 making some allegations, subsequent Managing Director has initiated proceedings by issuing charge list, in my opinion, that itself will not take away the power of the Disciplinary Authority in issuing charge sheet against the petitioner. However, the contents of the allegations made in the charge sheet ought to have been verified with reference to the objections filed by the petitioner to ascertain whether it is a fit case to initiate departmental enquiry, when particularly, on the same allegations, it was closed earlier. Therefore, application of mind by the respondents so far as the objection filed by the petitioner was an absolute requirement before passing the order at Annexure-G. In this context, Regulation 23 of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulation 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Regulation’) which is relevant to this case prescribes what are the procedures that should be followed by the Disciplinary Authority even before initiating departmental enquiry by appointing Enquiry Officer, Regulation 23(1 and 2) reads as under: (Rest of the regulations are not necessary so far as this case is concerned): "23. Procedure for imposing major penalties:- (1) No order imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (ix) and (x) of Regulation-18 shall be made except after an inquiry, held, as far as may be in the manner provided in this Regulation. (2) Whenever the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehavior against a Corporation servant it may itself inquire into or appoint under this Regulation an Authority to inquire into the truth thereof. Explanation - Where the Disciplinary Authority itself holds the inquiry, any reference in Sub-Regulation (7) to (20) and in Sub-Regulation (22) to the Inquiring Authority shall be construed as a reference to the Disciplinary Authority." 8. Explanation - Where the Disciplinary Authority itself holds the inquiry, any reference in Sub-Regulation (7) to (20) and in Sub-Regulation (22) to the Inquiring Authority shall be construed as a reference to the Disciplinary Authority." 8. On plain reading of this provision, it would clearly disclose that, under Regulation 23(2), the Disciplinary Authority must express its opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehavior against a Corporation servant, then only it may itself inquire into or appoint under this Regulation an Authority to inquire into the truth thereof. Therefore, what are all the grounds which are available has to be spelt out in the order itself and thereafter, opinion has to be expressed by the authorities that on those grounds an enquiry is an absolute requirement to ascertain the truth of any imputation of misconduct. When particularly, substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior by way of distinct articles of charges have been issued to the party, then objections preliminarily filed by delinquent employee should be taken into consideration before passing any order appointing Enquiry Officer. The grounds as contemplated under Regulation 23 of the Regulations presupposes that the Disciplinary Authority has applied its mind to consider all the materials available with him before appointing an Enquiry Authority. 9. Here, after issuing charge list, the petitioner has filed a detailed objection denying the allegations made against him. He has further stated that in view of closure of earlier report made against him, no further enquiry is required in the case. Consequently, he has taken up the contention that even on facts there is no material to proceed to appoint Enquiry Officer or to conduct any enquiry. Though the objections are filed before passing of the impugned order appointing an Enquiry Officer, the same has not been taken into consideration. 10. On plain perusal of Annexure-G, in the first paragraph, details of allegations made against the petitioner has been depicted. In the second paragraph, in one sentence it is stated that objections are not satisfactory therefore, in order to ascertain the truth or falsity of the allegations, an enquiry has to be conducted and accordingly, an order was passed appointing an Enquiry Officer. In the second paragraph, in one sentence it is stated that objections are not satisfactory therefore, in order to ascertain the truth or falsity of the allegations, an enquiry has to be conducted and accordingly, an order was passed appointing an Enquiry Officer. It is not stated in the order at Annexure-G that on what grounds the Disciplinary Authority has come to such a conclusion that the enquiry in this particular case is absolutely necessary. Therefore, in view of the above said provision of law and as the impugned order does not disclose the grounds, the said order at Annexure-G deserves to be quashed. However, imputations and charge list given to the petitioner itself cannot be quashed at this stage. It is still left to the discretion of the Disciplinary Authority to consider the charge list levelled against the petitioner and the objections filed by him and decide as to whether there are grounds and the enquiry is still required or not and thereafter, appropriate orders can be passed if there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioner. With these observations, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER: The writ petition is hereby allowed. The order passed by respondent No. 1 as per Annexure-G dated 08/16.08.2017 in No. KaRaSa:KeKa:Shistu:D-1465:497, 2017-18 is hereby quashed and all further proceedings with respect to the disciplinary enquiry is hereby quashed. The matter stands restored to the file of respondents. The respondents have to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after considering the objections filed by the petitioner in detail and narrating the grounds, if any, to proceed with the enquiry. If the Disciplinary Authority feels that the matter can be closed at that stage itself, it can also take such decision. However, taking of decision must be on the basis of the materials available on record.