JUDGMENT : Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J. 1. Heard Sri Upendra Nath Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Neel Kamal Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. By means of this petition the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 14.10.2019 passed by the respondent no. 1 whereby the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer vide letter dated 23.7.2019 has been rejected by the disciplinary authority in a mechanical and routine manner without assigning any valid or cogent reasons and a re-inquiry for the 4th time in a span of 10 years, have been ordered against the petitioner. 3. On the first date of admission this Court passed order dated 21.11.2019 as under: “Heard Sri Upendra Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Neel Kamal Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties. Under challenge is order dated 14.10.2019 whereby inquiry report dated 23.07.2019 submitted in third inquiry proceedings against petitioner have been disbelieved and directions have been issued for holding a fresh inquiry with regard to the same. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that earlier two inquiries were initiated against petitioner with regard to similar charges. In the first inquiry, petitioner had been exonerated from charges levelled against him on the ground that charges could not be proved against him although recommendation was made by inquiry officer for issuance of fresh charge-sheet to petitioner specifically indicating charges against him. In pursuance of same, a second charge-sheet was issued to petitioner on 08.06.2010 containing similar charges. In the said proceedings, inquiry report were submitted on 18.01.2011 where after punishment order was passed on 19.06.2013. Said punishment order was challenged by petitioner before the U.P. Public State Service Tribunal in which punishment was quashed granting liberty to authorities for initiating fresh inquiry proceedings against petitioner which was concluded within a period of four months. However it has been submitted that re-inquiry was directed after expiry of period of four months. However the aforesaid inquiry was permitted to be concluded within a further period of three months in petition filed by petitioner. However it has been submitted that re-inquiry was directed after expiry of period of four months. However the aforesaid inquiry was permitted to be concluded within a further period of three months in petition filed by petitioner. It has been submitted that in pursuance thereof, third inquiry proceedings on the basis of same charge-sheet ensued and in which the inquiry report dated 23.07.2019 has been submitted which has been rejected by means of order dated 14.10.2019 which is impugned herein. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the impugned order ordering re-inquiry has been passed without indicating any reasons for disagreement with the inquiry report and in violation of Rule 9(1) of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999 and various judgments on the said aspect as such it has been submitted that the order impugned is clearly non-speaking in nature and indicates non-application of mind by authority concerned. Learned State Counsel seeks time to obtain instructions in this matter. Prima-facie, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner require consideration since a perusal of order impugned does not indicate any reasons or disagreement being recorded by the authority concerned. As such opposite parties are granted three days' time to seek instructions. List on 28.11.2019 as a fresh case in the additional cause list. On the said date, learned State Counsel shall also produce the inquiry report submitted vide letter dated 23.07.2019.” 4. In compliance of the aforesaid order Sri Ran Vijay Singh has produced the copy of the letter dated 27.11.2019 preferred by Special Secretary of the Department addressed to the Chief Standing Counsel, High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow enclosing therewith the copy of the inquiry report dated 18.7.2018 submitted on 23.7.2019, the same are taken on record. The findings of the inquiry officer reveals that the charge no. 1 has, however, not proved against the petitioner but he has been held responsible for supervisory control. Charge nos. 2, 3 and 4 has not been proved against the petitioner. It appears that this is a detailed inquiry report which runs in 23 pages. 5. Considering the stand of the department, evidences of the department and the submission of the petitioner this is a peculiar case wherein the third inquiry has been conducted and concluded against the petitioner for the reasons indicated in the order dated 21.11.2019 passed by this Court. 5. Considering the stand of the department, evidences of the department and the submission of the petitioner this is a peculiar case wherein the third inquiry has been conducted and concluded against the petitioner for the reasons indicated in the order dated 21.11.2019 passed by this Court. It would be apt to reproduce Rule 9 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 as under: “9. Action on Inquiry Report: (1) The disciplinary authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, remit the case for re-inquiry to the same or any other Inquiry Officer under intimation to the charged Government servant. The Inquiry Officer shall thereupon proceed to hold the inquiry from such stage as directed by the disciplinary authority, according to the provisions of Rule 7. (2) The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on any charge, record its own findings thereon for reasons to be recorded. (3) In case the charges are not proved, the charged Government servant shall be exonerated by the disciplinary authority of the charges and inform him accordingly. (4) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all or any of charges is of the opinion that any penalty specified in Rule-3 should be imposed on the charged Government servant, he shall give a copy of the inquiry report and his findings recorded under sub-rule (2) to the charged Government servant and require him to submit his representation if he so desires, within a reasonable specified time. The disciplinary authority shall having regard to all the relevant records relating to the inquiry and representation of the charged Government servant, if any, and subject to the provisions of Rule 16 of these rules, pass a reasoned order imposing one or more penalties mentioned in Rule 3 of these rules and communicate the same to the charged Government servant.” 6. Rule 9(1) clearly mandates that the disciplinary authority may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, remit case for re-inquiry to the same, meaning thereby if the disciplinary authority remits the matter for re-inquiry the reasons to that effect must be recorded. What the impugned order dated 14.10.2019 reveals that no reasons as such has been explained and only this much has been indicated that the inquiry officer has conducted the inquiry in a cursory manner. What the impugned order dated 14.10.2019 reveals that no reasons as such has been explained and only this much has been indicated that the inquiry officer has conducted the inquiry in a cursory manner. For the brevity the impugned order dated 14.10.2019 is being reproduced as under: ^^mRRkj Áns'k 'kklu yksd fuekZ.k vuqHkkx&13 la[;k&1974@23&13&19&02 ¼lhŒihŒ½@14 y[kuÅ% fnukad 14 vDVwcj] 2019 dk;kZy;&Kkiu 1- Jh jkts'k pkS/kjh] rRdkyhu lgk;d vfHk;Urk] ÁkUrh; [k.M] yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx] tkSuiqj dh mDr rSukrh vof/k esa dsUæh; Hk.Mkj esa ik;h x;h de lkefxz;ksa ds dkj.k gqbZ 'kkldh; {kfr ds fy, 'kklu ds dk;kZy; Kki la[;k 2884@23&13&09&12¼6½ bZ,e@09] fnukad 13-7-2009 }kjk muds fo:) mŒÁŒ ljdkjh lsod ¼vuq'kkld ,oa vihy½ fu;ekoyh 1999 ds fu;e&7 ds vUrxZr vuq'kkfld dk;Zokgh lafLFkr djrs gq, eq[; vfHk;Urk ¼eqŒ&1½] yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx] y[kuÅ dks tkap vf/kdkjh ukfer fd;k x;kA dkykUrj esa 'kklu ds dk;kZy; vkns'k la[;k 2337@23&13&10&12¼6½ bZ,e@09] fnukad 7-6-2010 }kjk eq[; vfHk;Urk ¼eqŒ&1½] yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx] y[kuÅ ds LFkku ij eq[; vfHk;Urk ¼ifjokn½] yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx] y[kuÅ dks tkap vf/kdkjh ukfer fd;k x;kA 2- Á'uxr vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh esa Jh jkts'k pkS/kjh ds fo:) vkjksi fl) ik;s tkus ds n`f"Vxr 'kklu ds dk;kZy; vkns'k la[;k 1259@23&13&13&12¼6½ bZ,e@09] fnukad 19-6-2013 }kjk mUgsa lgk;d vfHk;Urk ds fuEurj ÁØe ij inkour fd;s tkus ,oa Ádj.k esa dkfjr dh x;h dqy 'kkldh; {kfr :i;s 63]17]025-00 dh olwyh fd;s tkus dk n.M fn;k x;kA 3- mDr n.Mkns'k fnukad 19-6-2013 ds fo:) funsZ'k ;kfpdk la[;k 1788@2013 jkts'k pkS/kjh cuke mŒÁŒ jkT; o vU; ;ksftr dh x;h] ftlesa ekuuh; vf/kdj.k }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 19-01-2017 ds vuqikyu esa Jh jkts'k pkS/kjh] rRdkyhu lgk;d vfHk;Urk] ÁkUrh; [k.M] yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx] tkSuiqj ds fo:) fuxZr n.Mkns'k fnukad 19-6-2013 dks fujLr djrs gq,] dk;kZy; Kki la[;k 1537@23&13&17&2 ¼lhŒihŒ½@14] fnukad 27-6-2017 }kjk vkjksi i= dk mRrj fn;s tkus ds Lrj ls vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh fj&vksisu dh x;h rFkk eq[; vfHk;Urk ¼eqŒ&1½] yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx] y[kuÅ dks tkap vf/kdkjh ukfer fd;k x;kA 4- bl laca/k esa tkap vf/kdkjh@eq[; vfHk;Urk ¼eqŒ&1½] yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx] y[kuÅ ds i=kad 296 dSEi eq[; vfHk;Urk ¼eqŒ&1½ tkap@19] fnukad 23-7-2019 ds ek/;e ls tkap vk[;k miyC/k djk;h x;h gSA tkap vk[;k ,oa Ádj.k esa miyC/k vU; lqlaxr vfHkys[kksa ds ijh{k.kksijkUr ik;k x;k fd tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk furkUr lrgh rkSj ij Ádj.k dh tkap dj tkap vk[;k miyC/k djk;h x;h gS] tks Lohdkj ;ksX; ugha gSA 5- of.kZr fLFkfr esa lE;d fopkjksijkUr Jh jkts'k pkS/kjh] rRdkyhu lgk;d vfHk;Urk] ÁkUrh; [k.M] yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx] tkSuiqj ds fo:) tkap vf/kdkjh+@eq[; vfHk;Urk ¼eqŒ&1½] yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx] y[kuÅ ds mDr lUnfHkZr i= fnukad 23-7-2019 }kjk miyC/k djk;h x;h tkap vk[;k dks vLohdkj djrs gq, Á'uxr tkap dk;Zokgh esa eq[; vfHk;Urk ¼eqŒ&1½] yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx] y[kuÅ ds LFkku ij eq[; vfHk;Urk] b.Mks&usiky ckMZj] yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx] y[kuÅ dks tkap vf/kdkjh ukfer fd;k tkrk gSA vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk] ÁkUrh; [k.M] yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx] tkSuiqj ÁLrqrdrkZ vf/kdkjh gksaxsA Jh jkT;iky dh vkKk ls] fufru jes'k xksd.kZ Áeq[k lfpoA la[;k 1974¼1½@23-13-2019] rn~fnukad Áfrfyfi fuEufyf[kr dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq Ásf"kr %& 1- Áeq[k vfHk;Urk ¼fodkl½ ,oa foHkkxk/;{k] yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx] mŒÁŒ y[kuÅA 2- eq[; vfHk;Urk ¼ifjokn½] yksŒfuŒfoŒ] y[kuÅ dks ,d vfrfjDr Áfr lfgr bl vk'k; ls Ásf"kr fd lacaf/kr vf/kdkjh dh Áfr rkehy djkdj rkehyh dh lwpuk 'kklu dks ,d lIrkg esa miyC/k djkus dk d"V djsaA 3- eq[; vfHk;Urk ¼eqŒ&1½] yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx] y[kuÅ dks bl vk'k; ls Ásf"kr fd mDr tkap ls lacaf/kr leLr vfHkys[k eq[; vfHk;Urk] b.Mks&usiky ckMZj] yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx] y[kuÅ ¼uohu tkap vf/kdkjh½ dks vfoyEc miyC/k djkuk lqfuf'pr djsaA 4- eq[; vfHk;Urk] b.Mks&usiky ckMZj] yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx] y[kuÅ ¼uohu tkap vf/kdkjh½ dks bl funsZ'k ds lkFk Ásf"kr fd os iwoZ tkap vf/kdkjh ls tkap laca/kh leLr vfHkys[k ÁkIr dj] 'kklu ds dk;kZy; Kki fnukad 13-7-2009 }kjk fn;s x;s funsZ'kksa ds Øe esa vkjksi i= dk mRrj fn;s tkus ds Lrj ls fj&vksisu vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh esa Jh jkts'k pkS/kjh] rRdkyhu lgk;d vfHk;Urk] ÁkUrh; [k.M] yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx] tkSuiqj dks lquokbZ dk iw.kZ volj nsrs gq, le;kUrxZr tkap vk[;k 'kklu dks miyC/k djk;saA 5- eq[; vfHk;Urk] okjk.klh {ks=] yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx] okjk.klhA 6- vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk] ÁkUrh; [k.M] yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx] tkSuiqj ¼ÁLrqrdrkZ vf/kdkjh½A 7- lEcfU/kr vf/kdkjh }kjk eq[; vfHk;Urk ¼ifjokn½] yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx] y[kuÅA 8- yksd fuekZ.k vuqHkkx&4 9- foHkkxh; iqfLrdkA vkKk ls] gLrk{kj & viBuh; ¼jkts'k dqekj ik.Ms;½ vuq lfpoA** 7. Para 4 of the impugned order is satisfaction of the disciplinary authority which is against Rule 1 of the Disciplinary Rules, 1999. The disciplinary authority must have indicated the specific reasons as to why he is not agreeable with the findings of the inquiry officer and what are the flaws and lapses in the inquiry report which convinced him to issue direction for re-inquiry. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction of the disciplinary authority is not in conformity with Rule 9(1) of the Rules, 1999. The Division Bench of this Court in the identical facts and circumstances has passed the judgment and order dated 5.4.2016, Writ Appeal No. 10552/2016, Dr. Atul Darbari vs. State of U.P. and Others allowing the said writ petitions quashing the impugned order directing the disciplinary authority to pass appropriate order on the basis of inquiry report. The Division Bench of this Court in the identical facts and circumstances has passed the judgment and order dated 5.4.2016, Writ Appeal No. 10552/2016, Dr. Atul Darbari vs. State of U.P. and Others allowing the said writ petitions quashing the impugned order directing the disciplinary authority to pass appropriate order on the basis of inquiry report. Para 5 of the said judgment indicates the impugned order of that writ petition dated 4.2.2016 and paras 8, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29 clarifies the factual and legal matrix of the issue, therefore, for the brevity the impugned order of that writ petition dated 4.2.2016 and other relevant paras are being reproduced as under: ^^mRRkj Áns'k 'kklu Je vuqHkkx&6 la[;k 85@36&6&2016&6 fjV@2010 y[kuÅ] fnukad 4 Qjojh] 2016 1- MkŒ vrqy njckjh] fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh dkŒjkŒchŒ fpfdRlky;] uSuh] bykgkckn ds fo:) uksMy vf/kdkjh dksVZdsl dkŒjkŒchŒ ;kstuk] Je fpfdRlk lsok,a bykgkckn ds :i esa fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 8350@1991 esa fnukad 12-3-2004 dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn }kjk ikfjr vkns'k dh Áekf.kr Áfr funs'kky; esa miyC/k u djkus ds dkj.k ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk fn, x, vkns'k dk fØ;kUo;u vfrfoyEc ls djrs gq, fu;qfDr gsrq vik= Jh fot; ukjk;u ;kno bŒlhŒthŒ VSDuhf'k;u o Jh jke y[ku lSuh] vksŒVhŒ VSDuhf'k;u dh lsok fnukad 11-5-2010 dks lekIr dh x;hA bl Ádkj vik= deZpkfj;ksa dks fnukad 12-2-2004 ls 11-5-2010 rd lsok esa j[kdj osru ds :i esa ljdkj dk vuko';d :i ls :i;s 17]41]755@ dk vf/kd Hkqxrku djuk iM+k rFkk v;ksX; dfeZ;ksa ls ejhtksa ds mipkj esa lg;ksx ysus dk [krjk mBkuk iM+kA MkŒ njckjh ds drZO; ds Áfr mnklhurk o ykijokgh ds dkj.k ljdkj dks :i;s 17]41]755@ dh {kfr igqapkus rFkk ejhtksa ds mipkj dks [krjs esa Mkyus ds fy;s vkjksfir djrs gq;s dk;kZy; Kki la[;k 642@30-6-2012&6 fjV@2010] fnukad 24-8-2012 }kjk vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh lafLFkr djrs gq, vkjksi&i= vuqeksfnr dj Á'uxr ekeys dh tkap gsrq Jh :æ dqekj xqIrk] fo'ks"k lfpo] Je foHkkx] mRrj Áns'k 'kklu dks tkap vf/kdkjh ukfer fd;k x;k FkkA 2- Ádj.k esa ukfer tkap vf/kdkjh Jh :nz dqekj xqIrk }kjk fnukad 29-9-2014 ,oa 14-10-2014 dks tkap vk[;k ÁLrqr dh x;hA tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk ÁLrqr tkap vk[;k ls vlger gksdj Ádj.k dh iqu% tkap dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA vr% MkŒ vrqy njckjh] fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh dkŒjkŒchŒ fpfdRlky;] uSuh] bykgkckn ds fo:) dk;kZy; Kki fnukad 24-8-2012 }kjk lafLFkr vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh dks ,rn}kjk fujLr djrs gq, Ádj.k dh iqu% tkap gsrq Jh ;ksxs'k dqekj] fo'ks"k lfpo] Je] mŒÁŒ 'kklu dks tkap vf/kdkjh ukfer fd;k tkrk gSA 3- tkap vf/kdkjh ls visf{kr gS fd Ádj.k dh 01 ekg esa tkap iw.kZ dj vk[;k ÁLrqr dh tk;sA gLrk{kj MkŒ vfurk HkVukxj tSu] Áeq[k lfpoA** “8. Be that as it may, the question is whether the disciplinary authority could have resorted to such a practice of abandoning the Inquiry already undertaken and resort to appointment of a fresh enquiring officer. 13. The controversy in hand has been subjected to detailed scrutiny by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in K.R. Deb vs. Collector of Central Excise, Shillong, AIR 1971 SC 1447 in which Hon'ble Apex Court has proceeded to examine the question in the context of Rule 15 (1) Rule 15(1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. It was a case where an enquiry was ordered against a sub-Inspector, Central Excise. The inquiry officer held that the charge was not proved. Thereafter the disciplinary authority appointed another inquiry officer "to conduct a supplementary open inquiry." Such supplementary inquiry was conducted and a report that there was "no conclusive proof" to "establish the charge" was made. Not satisfied, the disciplinary authority thought it fit that "another inquiry officer should be appointed to inquire afresh into the charge." In K.K. Deb's case (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that an Enquiry Officer may be asked by the Disciplinary Authority to record further evidence if there had been no proper enquiry because of some serious defect or because some important witnesses were not examined. The Court categorically held therein that the previous enquiry could not be set aside on the ground that the report of the Enquiry Officer did not appeal to the disciplinary Authority. Relevant paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgment are reproduced hereinafter:- “12. It seems to us that Rule 15, on the face of it, really provides for one inquiry but it may be possible if in a particular case there has been no proper enquiry because some serious defect has crept into the inquiry or some important witnesses were not available at the time of the inquiry or for some other reason, the Disciplinary Authority may ask the Inquiry Officer to record further evidence. But there is no provision in Rule 15 for completely setting aside previous inquiries on the ground that the report of the Inquiring Officer or Officers does not appeal to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority has enough powers to reconsider evidence itself and come to its own conclusion under Rule 9. 13. But there is no provision in Rule 15 for completely setting aside previous inquiries on the ground that the report of the Inquiring Officer or Officers does not appeal to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority has enough powers to reconsider evidence itself and come to its own conclusion under Rule 9. 13. In our view the rules do not contemplate an action such as was taken by the Collector on February 13, 1962. It seems to us that the Collector, instead of taking responsibility himself, was determined to get some officer to report against the appellant. The procedure adopted was not only not warranted by the rules but was harassing to the appellant.” 16. It appears that the respondent no. 1 dissatisfied with such earlier enquiry reports, ordered a de novo enquiry under the impugned order dated 4.2.2016 and appointed Shri Rudra Kumar Gupta, Special Secretary, Labour Department, Government of UP as Enquiry Officer. This practice of the respondent no. 1 in carelessly and callously discarding enquiry reports, which are not to its liking and ordering for denovo enquiry without even disclosing the reasons, which weighed with it for rejecting the findings of the previous enquiry Officer, is a clear transgression of the law and requires to be deprecated in the strongest terms. 17. In Union of India vs. M.L. Capoor and Others, AIR 1974 SC 87 , the Supreme Court observed: “28.......Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Only in this way can opinions or decisions recorded be shown to be manifestly just and reasonable........” 19. "Reasons" are the milestones which chart the journey of the decision-maker in reaching his destination. Absence of reasons thus leaves the decision-making process without a rudder and open to arbitrariness. Viewed in this light, the approach of respondent no. 1 in instituting denovo enquiry by appointing Enquiry Officer afresh without even setting aside the findings recorded by the earlier Enquiry Officer, giving due reasons therefore, is clearly unsustainable in law. 20. In the present matter, it has been urged that the impugned order is in teeth of Rules 8 and 9 of Rules 1999. 1 in instituting denovo enquiry by appointing Enquiry Officer afresh without even setting aside the findings recorded by the earlier Enquiry Officer, giving due reasons therefore, is clearly unsustainable in law. 20. In the present matter, it has been urged that the impugned order is in teeth of Rules 8 and 9 of Rules 1999. For ready reference, Rules 8 and 9 of Rules 1999 are extracted:- “8. Procedure for imposing major penalties - (1) No order imposing any of the major penalties specified in Rule 6 shall be made except after an inquiry is held as far as may be, in the manner provided in this rule and Rule 10, or provided by the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 (37 of 1850) where such inquiry is held under that Act. (2) Whenever the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against a member of the Service, it may appoint under this rule or under the provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, as the case may be, an authority to inquire into the truth thereof. (3) Where a Board is appointed as the inquiring authority it shall consist of not less than two senior officers provided that at least one member of such a Board shall be an officer of the service to which the member of the service belongs. 9. Action on Inquiry Report - (1) The Disciplinary Authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, remit the case for re-inquiry to the same or any other Inquiry Officer under intimation tot he charged Government servant. The Inquiry Officer shall thereupon proceed to hold the inquiry from such stage as directed by the Disciplinary Authority, according to the provisions of Rule 7. (2) The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on any charge, record its own findings thereon for reasons to be recorded. (3) In case the charges are not proved, the charged Government servant shall be exonerated the Disciplinary Authority of the charges and informed him accordingly. (2) The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on any charge, record its own findings thereon for reasons to be recorded. (3) In case the charges are not proved, the charged Government servant shall be exonerated the Disciplinary Authority of the charges and informed him accordingly. (4) If the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to its findings on all or any of charges is of the opinion that any penalty specified in Rule 3 should be imposed on the charged Government servant, he shall give a copy of the inquiry report and his findings recorded under sub-rule (2) to the charged Government servant and require him to submit his representation if he so desires, within a reasonable specified time. The Disciplinary Authority shall, having regard to all the relevant records relating to the inquiry and representation of the charged Government servant, if any, and subject to the provisions of Rule 16 of these rules, pass a reasoned speaking order imposing one or more penalties mentioned in Rule 3 of these rules and communicate the same to the charged Government servant.” 22. Rule 9 prescribes action on the enquiry report. Rule 9 (1) provides that the Disciplinary Authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, remit the case for re-inquiry to the same or any other Inquiry Officer under intimation to the charged Government servant. The Inquiry Officer shall thereupon proceed to hold the inquiry from such stage as directed by the Disciplinary Authority, according to the provisions of Rule 7. Rule 9 (2) provides that the Disciplinary Authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the enquiry Inquiry Officer on any charge, record its own findings thereon for reasons to be recorded. Rule 9 (3) provides that in case the charges are not proved, the charged Government servant shall be exonerated the Disciplinary Authority of the charges and informed him accordingly. Rule 9 (4) provides that If the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to its finding on all or any of charges is of the opinion that any penalty specified in Rule 3 should be imposed on the charged Government Servant, he shall give a copy of the inquiry report and his finding recorded under sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 to the charged Government Servant and require him to submit his representation if he so desires, within a reasonable specified time. The Disciplinary Authority shall having regard to all the relevant records relating to the inquiry and representation of the charged Government Servant, if any, and subject to the provisions of Rule 16 of these rules, passes a reasoned order imposing one or more penalties mentioned in Rule 3 of these and communicate the same to the charged Government Servant. 23. It can be seen from the above that the normal rule is that there can be only one enquiry. Hon'ble Apex Court has also recognized the possibility of a further enquiry in certain circumstances enumerated therein. The decision, however, makes it clear that the fact, that the report submitted by the enquiring authority is not acceptable to the disciplinary authority, is not a ground for completely setting aside the enquiry report and ordering a fresh denovo enquiry. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the principle laid down in K.R. Deb's case would squarely apply to the case in hand. 25. In our opinion, on general principles, there can be only one enquiry in respect of charges 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. 27. A bare perusal of the order impugned and the record in question this much is accepted position that at no point of time the disciplinary authority had proceeded to give any reason for disagreeing with the earlier enquiry reports in question. Therefore, in these circumstances there is no justification for conducting a second enquiry on the very same charges. Law is clear on the subject, and permits only disciplinary proceedings and same cannot be approved as harassment and allowing such practice is not in the interest of public service. Same view has also been approved by Hon'ble Apex Court in Nand Kumar Verma vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, (2012) 3 SCC 580 and Vijay Shankar Pandey vs. Union of India and Another, (2014) 10 SCC 589 . 28. Same view has also been approved by Hon'ble Apex Court in Nand Kumar Verma vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, (2012) 3 SCC 580 and Vijay Shankar Pandey vs. Union of India and Another, (2014) 10 SCC 589 . 28. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the impugned order dated 4.2.2016 for denovo/a fresh enquiry against the petitioner on the same charges, which were subject matter of the enquiry reports dated 29.9.2014 and 14.10.2014, is illegal and arbitrary; and hence, is liable to be set aside. The impugned order dated 4.2.2016 is consequently set aside. 29. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the respondent no. 1 is directed to take appropriate decision in the light of the enquiry reports dated 29.9.2014 and 14.10.2014 within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. There shall be no order as to costs.” 8. Not only the above Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Shankar Pandey vs. Union of India and Another, (2014)10 SCC 589 , vide para 32 has explained the word cursory. As per the view of Hon'ble Apex Court indicating the word that the inquiry officer has made inquiry in cursory manner would not suffice but as to how the findings of the inquiry officer are cursory should be explained. Para 32 is being reproduced as under: “32. Coming to the first reason-that the report is a cursory report - A copy of the report is not made available to the appellant. The content of the said report is not known. The only admitted fact about the report is that the appellant was exonerated of all the charges made against him. If such a conclusion is otherwise justified, whether the report is cursory or elaborate, should make no difference to the legality of the report. What matters is the correctness of the conclusions recorded, not the length or the elegance of the language of the report which determines the legality of the conclusions recorded in it. Therefore, this ground is equally untenable.” 9. What matters is the correctness of the conclusions recorded, not the length or the elegance of the language of the report which determines the legality of the conclusions recorded in it. Therefore, this ground is equally untenable.” 9. Sri Ran Vijay Singh has however, tried to justify the office memo dated 14.10.2019 by submitting that the disciplinary authority has found that the inquiry officer has conducted cursory inquiry, therefore, the direction for re-inquiry may be issued as this is the domain and prerogative of the disciplinary authority but on being confronted in the light of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Shankar Pandey (supra) wherein the term cursory has been explained and defined, Sri Ran Vijay Singh has nothing to defend. Further, on being confronted regarding the judgment in Dr. Atul Darbari (supra) wherein the similar facts and circumstances have been considered by the Division Bench of this Court and the said matter was allowed considering the various judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court besides the judgment of Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.R. Deb's (supra), Sri Ran Vijay Singh could not properly justify the office memo dated 14.10.2019 whereby the direction of re-inquiry has been issued that too 4th time in a span of 10 years. 10. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and considering the relevant material available on record viz. a viz. the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Atul Darbari (supra) I am of the considered opinion that the office memo dated 14.10.2019 is illegal, arbitrary and uncalled for and liable to be quashed. I have also no hesitation in holding that impugned order dated 14.10.2019 for de-novo and fresh inquiry against the petitioner by the authorities which were subject matter of inquiry report dated 18.7.2017 is illegal and arbitrary. 11. Therefore, a writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the office memo dated 14.10.2019 passed by the opposite party no. 1, Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition. 12. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the disciplinary authority to take appropriate decision in the light of the inquiry report dated 18.7.2019 within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order of this Court. 13. Writ petition is allowed. 1 to the writ petition. 12. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the disciplinary authority to take appropriate decision in the light of the inquiry report dated 18.7.2019 within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order of this Court. 13. Writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.