JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 17.3.2022 (Annex. 14), whereby, the representation made by the petitioner dated 9.3.2022 (Annex. 13), has not been accepted. 2. The petitioner was issued a charge-sheet dated 8.4.2019 (Annex. 5), wherein, the petitioner was informed of six charges along with details of the said charges. On 6.6.2019 (Annex. 6), Inquiry Officer was appointed. The Inquiry Officer was substituted by order dated 16.7.2019 (Annex. 8). 3. Aggrieved of initiation of inquiry proceedings, the petitioner filed SBCWP No. 13591/2019, wherein, initially by order dated 12.9.2019, further proceedings before the Inquiry Officer pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 8.4.2019 were stayed, however, ultimately the petition, wherein, the petitioner had challenged the order of suspension dated 11.1.2019, charge-sheet dated 8.4.2019 and another order dated 30.4.2019 came to be dismissed by learned Single Judge with a cost of Rs. 50,000/- and the Bank was directed to conclude the inquiry against the petitioner expeditiously. 4. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 7.12.2021, the petitioner preferred D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 37/2022, which came to be decided by the Division Bench on 27.1.2022, wherein, the appeal was disposed of, the direction for payment of cost was deleted, the Department was directed to complete the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law unmindful of observations made by the learned Single Judge and all the contentions of the petitioner were kept open, which may be raised before the disciplinary authority. 5. Whereafter, the petitioner filed a reply to the charge-sheet dated 8.4.2019 before the Inquiry Officer (Annex. 12) on 28.2.2022. The petitioner also filed an application dated 9.3.2022 (Annex. 13) before the Inquiry Officer requiring him to revisit the charge-sheet and reject the same. A copy whereof, was marked to the Managing Director of the Bank seeking quashing of the charge-sheet. 6. The Managing Director - Disciplinary Authority by its order impugned dated 17.3.2022 (Annex. 14) indicated with reference to petitioner's letter that whatever would be the conclusion and outcome of the inquiry, proceedings in accordance with law, would be taken and the petitioner was required to cooperate with the inquiry. 7. 6. The Managing Director - Disciplinary Authority by its order impugned dated 17.3.2022 (Annex. 14) indicated with reference to petitioner's letter that whatever would be the conclusion and outcome of the inquiry, proceedings in accordance with law, would be taken and the petitioner was required to cooperate with the inquiry. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the various documents filed with regard to the entire episode pertaining to defalcation of funds from the Bank that charge No. 3 and 4 made against the petitioner, is not made out and, therefore, the disciplinary authority should have passed a speaking order in this regard while rejecting the representation made by the petitioner, which in fact should have been accepted. 8. Submissions were made with reference to Rule 17 of the Urban Cooperative Banks, Employees Service Rules, 2006 ('the Rules') and judgment in State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna & Ors. AIR 2001 SC 343 that the disciplinary authority, once the reply was filed by the petitioner, should have considered the same in relation to various charges levelled against the petitioner and pass a speaking order on each of the charges as to how further inquiry qua the said charges is required, in absence whereof, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 10. As noticed hereinbefore, the petitioner was issued the charge-sheet on 8.4.2019 and the Inquiry Officer was appointed on 6.6.2019, at that stage, the petitioner questioned the validity of the charge-sheet itself by filing writ petition before this Court, which came to be dismissed by learned Single Judge. 11. The Division Bench in an appeal filed by the petitioner inter alia passed the following order:- "27/01/2022 This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 07.12.2021. The appellant-original petitioner is an officer of the respondent cooperative bank. He was placed under suspension by order dated 01.01.2019 on the ground of contemplated departmental inquiry. The charge-sheet was issued on 08.04.2019 and on 30.04.2019 the bank passed an order changing the headquarter of the petitioner pending inquiry. In the writ petition, he had challenged all these three orders. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, upon which this appeal has been filed. The charge-sheet was issued on 08.04.2019 and on 30.04.2019 the bank passed an order changing the headquarter of the petitioner pending inquiry. In the writ petition, he had challenged all these three orders. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, upon which this appeal has been filed. In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant had only sought for setting aside the charges No. 3 and 4 contained in the charge-sheet, which relate to allegation of misappropriation allegedly made by the petitioner. However, at the pre-inquiry stage, we are not inclined to go into the disputed questions of facts and quash the charge-sheet. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Single Judge has imposed the cost which may be deleted. In facts of the case, this appeal is disposed of with the following observations and directions: 1. The direction for payment of cost imposed by the learned Single Judge is deleted. 2. The department shall complete the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law unmindful of observations made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 3. All contentions of the petitioner are kept open, which may be raised before the disciplinary authority." 12. A perusal of the above order would reveal that the petitioner had pressed for setting aside of charge No. 3 and 4 contained in the charge-sheet, however, the Division Bench was not inclined to go in the disputed questions of fact and quash the charge-sheet, however, the direction for payment of cost imposed by learned Single Judge was deleted and the Department was directed to complete the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law unmindful of observations made by the learned Single Judge and all the contentions of the petitioners were kept open, which may be raised before the disciplinary authority. 13. The above observations made by the Division Bench are categorical in nature, wherein, the Court declined to go into the validity of charge No. 3 and 4 as they involved disputed questions of fact, required the completion of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and kept it open for the petitioner to raise issues before the disciplinary authority. 14. 13. The above observations made by the Division Bench are categorical in nature, wherein, the Court declined to go into the validity of charge No. 3 and 4 as they involved disputed questions of fact, required the completion of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and kept it open for the petitioner to raise issues before the disciplinary authority. 14. It appears that the petitioner taking advantage of the observations made by the Division Bench, by moving application before the Inquiry Officer and marking a copy of the same to the disciplinary authority sought to put the clock back to the stage where the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner. 15. Admittedly, at the stage when the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 8.4.2019, the petitioner did not respond to the charge-sheet before the disciplinary authority and once the Inquiry Officer was appointed, questioned the validity of the charge-sheet by filing the petition before this Court. 16. The indications made in the order of Division Bench with regard to raising all contentions before the disciplinary authority in the context of the present case would only mean, once the disciplinary proceedings before the Inquiry Officer are concluded and, therefore, the plea sought to be raised by the petitioner with reference to judgment in the case of V.K. Khanna (supra) cannot be countenanced as the observations made by the Supreme Court pertains to a stage before the Inquiry Officer is appointed. 17. The petitioner, having filed his response to the charge-sheet before the Inquiry Officer, cannot now seek to go back to a stage prior and seek adjudication of the contentions from the disciplinary authority, at this stage, before conclusion of the inquiry proceedings by the Inquiry Officer. 18. The reference made to Rule 17 of the Rule does not come to the aid of the petitioner, inasmuch as, Rule 17(4) only provides for procedure for dealing with major punishment cases and does not contemplate the procedure sought to be resorted to by the petitioner. 19. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed.