ORDER :— Heard finally with the consent of the counsel for the parties. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 31-3-2007, and 31-7-2007 passed by respondent No. 5, S. P., Ratlam as also against the order dated 13-11-2007 passed by respondent No. 4 Deputy Inspector General of Police, (DIG) Ratlam Range. In the order dated 31-7-2007, a minor penalty of withholding one increment has been imposed upon the petitioner with cumulative effect. However, the same was enhanced to reduction of minimum pay scale for one year with cumulative effect vide order dated 13-11-2007. The petition is also preferred against the order passed in appeal dated 13-9-2008 whereby the order of punishment has been affirmed. 3. The case of the petitioner is that on 18-1-2006 he accosted the complainant Vishal Singh and his friend on a motorcycle and took out Rs. 500/- from his pocket and also demanded Rs. 2,000/-. In the inquiry which was conducted at the instance of the complaint made by Vishal, the petitioner was given a clean chit vide inquiry report dated 9-11-2006. The disciplinary authority S. P. Ratlam, however, disagreed with the inquiry report and remanded the matter back directing the inquiry officer to take the evidence afresh from the stage of prosecution witness and pass the appropriate order. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid direction issued by the disciplinary authority runs contrary to Rule 15 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, which provides that only a further inquiry can be undertaken. In support of his contention, Shri Parwal has relied upon a decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kamal Kishore Bansal vs. M. P. E. B., reported as 1994(I) MPWN 91 . Reliance has also been placed on a decision rendered by Co-ordinate Bench this Court at Gwalior in the case of Parmal Singh Tomar vs. State of M. P., reported as 2019 (I) MPWN 67 whereby this Court has held that the inquiry officer, who has cross-examined the petitioner as also the defence witnesses assumes a partisan character resulting in the inquiry being vitiated. It is submitted that in the present case also no presenting officer was appointed and it was only the inquiry officer, who had cross-examined the petitioner as also the defence witnesses. Thus, it is submitted that on these two grounds only the petition is liable to be allowed and the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. 5. Shri Akash Sharma, counsel for the respondents/State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that as per the reply filed by the State, no case for interference is made out. 6. On due consideration of submissions, and on perusal of the documents filed on record, it is found that so far as the reply is concerned, it is only a reply of denial and no additional documents have been filed to substantiate the same. On perusal of the order passed by the disciplinary authority i.e., S. P. Ratlam, it is found that while disagreeing with the inquiry officer, the following observations have been made :— 7. A perusal of the aforesaid direction clearly reveals that the disciplinary authority had directed the inquiry officer to proceed de novo from the stage of prosecution witnesses and there is no such direction that any further inquiry be taken up as per Rules 15 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 which envisages only further inquiry and not the fresh or de novo inquiry. In such circumstances, this Court finds force in the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner and has no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the subsequent de novo inquiry taken up by the inquiry officer at the instance of the disciplinary authority runs contrary to Rule 15 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, which only prescribes further inquiry. 8. In such circumstances, on this ground only, the subsequent impugned orders against the petitioner cannot be sustained. As a result, the petition stands allowed and the impugned orders dated 31-3-2007, 31-7-2007, 13-11-2007 and 13-9-2008 are hereby quashed. 9. Respondents are directed to remit the amount, which has been deducted so far from the petitioner’s salary within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.