JUDGMENT 1. The writ petitioner being aggrieved with the appointment of an Inquiry Officer from outside the respondent Corporation, to inquire into the charges framed against the petitioner, on the ground that, the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules (CDA Rules) does not provide for the same, seeks a mandamus to set aside the said appointment, as also the pending disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner who is serving as an Assistant Accounts Officer in the respondent Corporation, it is alleged, had shown unruly and rude behaviour towards his Superior Officer, for which disciplinary proceedings had been drawn up against him, as per the CDA Rules, whereafter, a Memorandum of Charges and Statement of Imputation of Misconduct dated 06.10.2021 was served upon him. Prior to the institution of departmental proceedings, the respondent Corporation on the said allegation had on 12.05.2021, appointed a one man inquiry, which was conducted by a Director (Technical) who had given a report to the disciplinary authority, which went against the petitioner. As it appeared that, he was not given adequate opportunity, another inquiry committee comprising of 3 Executive Directors, to ascertain the culpability of the petitioner was constituted. On the basis of the report of the inquiry team, the aforementioned Memorandum of Charges was issued. 3. The petitioner thereafter, gave a detailed reply to the disciplinary authority denying of charges, but however, after a gap of 9 (nine) months, vide office order No. 162 dated 12.07.2022, another Inquiry Officer namely Shri. Pradip Pujari, Retired Superintendent of Police, Assam, was appointed. The petitioner by his own statements, cooperated with the said inquiry, but it appears on coming to learn that the earlier inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry team, was biased and prepared in haste and further that, the CDA Rules stipulated that an Officer to conduct a disciplinary inquiry against the employees of the Corporation should be appointed from amongst the officers of Corporation, then raised objections before the respondents. The objection of the petitioner was based on Rule 29.2, which provided that a disciplinary authority, may itself inquire, or appoint any officers of Corporation to conduct the inquiry. The petitioner therefore, resisted the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings, by maintaining that the Inquiry Officer not being an employee of the Corporation, was incompetent and lacked jurisdiction. 4. The objection of the petitioner was based on Rule 29.2, which provided that a disciplinary authority, may itself inquire, or appoint any officers of Corporation to conduct the inquiry. The petitioner therefore, resisted the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings, by maintaining that the Inquiry Officer not being an employee of the Corporation, was incompetent and lacked jurisdiction. 4. The petitioner after taking the above noted ground, did not cooperate any further and did not attend the subsequent hearings that were fixed before the Inquiry Officer. It has also been contended by the petitioner that, the earlier inquiry report submitted by the inquiry team, being illegal, in view of the revelation of one of its members, that the same was arrived at, under duress and intimidation, the entire proceedings were vitiated. 5. Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Syiem, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire proceedings are vitiated on two grounds, firstly, that the inquiry gone into by the three member committee of Executive Directors, which recommended disciplinary action against the petitioner stood disabled by the admission of one of the members, that the same was a contrived report and secondly that, the present inquiry being on the basis of the finding of the biased report and that too being conducted in violation of the CDA Rules, the entire disciplinary proceedings were liable to be annulled. 6. The learned Senior counsel submits that the respondent Corporation cannot deviate from Rule 29.2 of the CDA Rules, which provides for appointment of officer only from the Corporation itself to be appointed as Inquiry Officer, and in support thereof, has placed reliance on the following cases; i) State of Punjab v. Bandeep Singh and Others (2016) 1 SCC 724 ii) Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. and Others (2003) 2 SCC 111 . 7. Mr. V.K. Jindal, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. V. Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation, on the point of the exercise of powers by the respondent Corporation through the CMD, with regard to the appointment of an Inquiry Officer from outside the Corporation, has submitted that, on the allegations against the petitioner, initially a Director (Technical) NEEPCO, was appointed, who in his report dated 20.05.2021, opined that a detailed inquiry was necessary, which led to the constitution of a three member committee of Executive Directors, to inquire the details. However, he submits, one of the members, after the report had been submitted, vide his letter dated 01.08.2022, reported to the Director (Personnel) that the Committee was under external pressure, and that the same was submitted in haste and in a biased manner, which then led to the appointment of Shri. Pradip Pujari, Retired Superintendent of Police, as Inquiry Officer, to arrive at a fair and impartial decision. 8. The learned Senior counsel submits that Rule 29.2 of the CDA Rules, empowers the CMD, to inquire into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against an employee, either by himself or to appoint any officer of the Corporation. It is further submitted that, the Department of Public Enterprise, Government of India, had issued an Office Memorandum dated 26.04.1974, with a model set of CDA Rules, which were issued to the concerned ministries and departments for adoption. Later he submits, these Rules were consolidated and a Consolidated Model Conduct, Discipline and Appeal (CDA) Rules, for CPSE's-2007, was issued by the Department of Public Enterprise on 11.12.2017. The learned Senior counsel then refers to Rules 25.2 of the Rules, where he submits gives the liberty to the disciplinary authority to appoint any Inquiry Authority to inquire into the truth thereof, and that the respondent Corporation being a Government company, is duty bound to follow these guidelines, which are issued from time to time. These guidelines, he submits are squarely applicable to the respondent Corporation. To illustrate this point, that the respondent Corporation has been appointing serving or retired officers of other organization, as Inquiry Officers, the learned Senior counsel has referred to office orders annexed to the affidavit and marked as Annexure - B series. The learned Senior counsel lastly submits, that these guidelines issued by the Department of Public Enterprise, are to be complied with by all Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSE) and has produced a Office Memorandum dated 29.07.2010, to support this contention. 9. I have heard learned counsels for the parties. After considering the submissions advanced by both sides, the only point that arises for adjudication is whether, the impugned order appointing Shri. Pradip Pujari, Retired Superintendent of Police, as the Inquiry Officer is within the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority of the respondent Corporation under the CDA Rules. 9. I have heard learned counsels for the parties. After considering the submissions advanced by both sides, the only point that arises for adjudication is whether, the impugned order appointing Shri. Pradip Pujari, Retired Superintendent of Police, as the Inquiry Officer is within the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority of the respondent Corporation under the CDA Rules. A brief reprisal of the circumstances, that have led to the appointment of an Inquiry Officer, who is not an employee of the respondent Corporation, is that, the initial one man inquiry was found to be inadequate, and a three man inquiry committee was then constituted to conduct the inquiry, which also furnished a report that has been disregarded, in view of the stated biasness of the same. 10. The CDA Rules of the NEEPCO, at Rule 29.2, has provided as follows. '29.2. Whenever the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiry into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehavior against an employee, it may itself enquire into, or appoint any officer of the Corporation (hereinafter called the Enquiring Authority) to enquire into the truth thereof.' A plain reading of this rule, stipulates that the disciplinary authority if not conducting the inquiry itself, is permitted to only appoint an officer of the Corporation itself. 11. An examination of the guidelines, which had been referred to by the learned Senior counsel for the respondent Corporation, that is, the Consolidated Model Conduct, Discipline and Appeal (CDA) Rules, for CPSE's-2017, under the covering letter dated 11.12.2017, clearly speaks that the model rules have been forwarded to the respective CPSE's for adoption, while framing their CDA Rules. However nowhere, in the CDA Rules of NEEPCO, does the provision 25.2, the content or purport thereof, are seen to have been incorporated in any manner. The argument therefore, that the model rules are mandatorily to be followed by the respondent Corporation, does not hold any water. Further, a perusal of the Annexure - B series, office orders annexed to the affidavit, all speak only of exercise of powers under Rule 29.2, of the CDA Rules, NEEPCO, and there is no mention, that the model rules had been implemented in the appointment of persons from outside the Corporation, as Inquiry Officers. 12. Further, a perusal of the Annexure - B series, office orders annexed to the affidavit, all speak only of exercise of powers under Rule 29.2, of the CDA Rules, NEEPCO, and there is no mention, that the model rules had been implemented in the appointment of persons from outside the Corporation, as Inquiry Officers. 12. Though, it is healthy, to have Inquiry Officers, who are independent and not an employee, or a member of the concerned organization, as it will be in furtherance of neutral and impartial proceedings, however, by operation of Rule 29.2 of the CDA Rules, NEEPCO, and the non-incorporation of the model guidelines, this option is not available to the respondent Corporation. It is well settled, that when an authority is required to do a thing in a certain or particular manner, as has been laid down by Rule 29.2 of the CDA Rules, NEEPCO, the same must be done in that manner or not at all. The respondent Corporation in the instant case, therefore, can be said to have deviated from Rule 29.2 of the CDA Rules of NEEPCO, in appointing an Inquiry Officer from outside the Corporation. 13. The inquiries and events that have happened, prior to the present impugned proceedings, emanating from the order dated 12.07.2022, being of no further consequence, no longer deserve any consideration in arriving at a conclusion to decide this matter. Accordingly, the impugned Office Order No. 162 dated 12.07.2022, as far as it concerns, the appointment of Shri. Pradip Pujari, Retired Superintendent of Police, is held to be beyond the scope of the powers of the disciplinary authority of the respondent Corporation, and is accordingly set aside. Consequently, the proceedings are also held to be without jurisdiction. The respondent Corporation/disciplinary authority is however, at liberty to restart the disciplinary proceedings on the appointment of a new Inquiry Officer, in accordance with the rules. 14. For the reasons aforementioned, this writ petition is allowed, to the extent indicated above and stands disposed of.