JUDGMENT : By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged Office Orders dated 05.01.2012 and 02.03.2012, appended with this petition as Annexures P-10 and P-11, respectively, in terms whereof the Disciplinary Authority has ordered ‘denovo inquiry’ against the petitioner on the charges which were framed against the petitioner. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that vide Office Order dated 30.09.2010 (Annexure P1), the petitioner, who at the relevant time was serving as Manager, Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education, Sale Book Depot, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P., was placed under suspension for gross irregularities during the spot evaluation of the annual examination conducted in March, 2010, at Spot Evaluation Centre, GGSSS Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P., in lieu of the Departmental Proceedings being contemplated against him. Thereafter, vide Memorandum dated 13.12.2010 (Annexure P2), the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why disciplinary proceedings be not initiated against him on the Article of Charges appended therewith. As the Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with the response which was filed by the petitioner thereto, accordingly, Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated and an Inquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the matter. After the completion of the inquiry, Inquiry Officer submitted Inquiry Report, to the Disciplinary Authority. After receipt of the Inquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority passed order dated 05.01.2012 (Annexure P10), which reads as under: “WHEREAS an inquiry (denovo inquiry) was under Rule14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 is being held against Sh. Krishnu Ram, Distt. Manager (Under Suspension). AND WHEREAS Sh. Sohan Singh, Assistant Secretary was appointed as Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges framed against the above said Officer vide order No.HB (1) Estt. GF93 (259/146)/201082068210 dated 11.5.2011. The Inquiry Officer had submitted his inquiry report on dated 20.9.2011. The inquiry report which is incomplete itself cannot be treated as final for reaching at any conclusion. The Inquiry Officer has failed to conduct the inquiry as per the provision of Rule14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and he has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence present in this case and failed to give his assessment of the evidence in respect of each charge and also the reasons for his findings on each charge so that the inquiry report is not satisfactory. Hence the de-novo inquiry is necessary to inquire into the charges framed against the above said officer. AND WHEREAS the undersigned considers that the another Inquiring authority should be appointed to inquire into the charges framed against the said Officer. NOW THEREFORE, the undersigned in exercise of the powers delegated by the Board in its 77th meeting held on 19.6.2001 and in exercise of the powers conferred by subrule (2) of CCS (CCA) Rule1965, Rule14, hereby appoints Sh. Girdhari Lal Verma, Asstt. Secretary as the Inquiring Authority.” 3. This was followed by issuance of Annexure P11, I.e. order dated 02.03.2012, in terms whereof one Shri Ravinder Singh Thakur, Section Officer was appointed as a Presenting Officer. It is in this background that the present writ petition stands filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority (Annexure P10), dated 05.01.2012 is void ab initio, for the reason that Rule 14 and 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 do not confer any power upon the Disciplinary Authority to hold a denovo inquiry. While drawing the attention of the Court to the provisions of Rule 14 and also Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, learned counsel argued that the act of the Disciplinary Authority, ordering holding of denovo inquiry in fact is contrary to the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, reported in K.R. Deb Versus The Collector of Central Excise, Shillong AIR 1971 SC 1447 , in which Hon’ble Supreme Court while interpreting Rule 15 of CCS (CCA) Rules, held 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 inquiry because some serious defect has crept into the inquiry or such important witnesses were not available at the time of inquiry or were not examined for some other reason, the Disciplinary Authority may ask the Inquiry Officer to record further evidence. However, there is no provision in Rule 15 for completely setting aside previous inquiries on the ground that report of the Inquiring Officer or officers does not appeals to the Disciplinary Authority. However, there is no provision in Rule 15 for completely setting aside previous inquiries on the ground that report of the Inquiring Officer or officers does not appeals to the Disciplinary Authority. Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.3998 of 2019, titled Smt. Indira Thakur and another Versus State of H.P. and another, decided on 31.12.2019, in which Hon’ble Coordinate Bench after taking note of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.R. Deb Versus The Collector of Central Excise, Shillong AIR 1971 SC 1447 , was pleased to quash and set aside the order of denovo inquiry with further direction to the respondent therein to take the Inquiry Report submitted by the Inquiry Officer to its logical conclusion as expeditiously as possible. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Allahabad Bank and others Versus Krishna Narayan Tewari (2017) 2 Supreme Court Cases 308. On the strength of the said judgment, learned counsel has submitted that taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has now superannuated from service, therefore, besides allowing this writ petition, it be ordered that the proceedings which were initiated against the petitioner, be put to a quietus. 5. The petition is opposed by learned counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that there is no infirmity in the passing of Annexure P10, because in given circumstances, the Disciplinary Authority has the power to order denovo inquiry. Learned counsel argued that after perusal of the Inquiry Report, as the Disciplinary Authority came to the conclusion that the Inquiring Authority had failed to appreciate the documentary evidence and also failed to give his assessment of the evidence in respect of each charge and further reasons for findings recorded for each charge were not satisfactory, the Disciplinary Authority was having no option, but to order denovo inquiry, as was rightly done by the officer concerned. Learned counsel also argued that otherwise also, no prejudice was caused or is going to be caused to the petitioner, for the reason that in the event of a denovo inquiry being conducted, the petitioner will again get a right to put forth all his contentions before the Inquiring Authority and in case his version is found to be satisfactory, then but obvious, the proceedings will be quashed. Accordingly, he prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others Versus P. Thayagarajan (1999) 1 SCC 733 , in Para8 of this judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as under: “A careful reading of this passage will make it clear that this court notices that if in a particular case where there has been no proper enquiry because of some serious defect having crept into the inquiry or some important witnesses were not available at the time of the inquiry or were not examined, the Disclpinary Authority may ask the Inquiry Officer to record further evidence but that provision would not enable the Disciplinary Authority to set aside the previous enquiries on the ground that the report of the Enquiry Officer does not appeal to the Disciplinary Authority. In the present case the basis upon which the Disciplinary Authority set aside the enquiry is that the procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer was contrary to the relevant rules and affects the rights of the parties and not that the report does not appeal to him. When important evidence, either to be relied upon by the department or by the delinquent official, is shut out, this would not result in any advancement of any justice but on the other hand resuit in a miscarriage thereof. Therefore we are of the view that Rule 27(c) enables the Disciplinary Authority to record his findings on the report and to pass an appropriate order including ordering a de novo enquiry in a case of present nature.” 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as evidence on record. 7. Rules 14 and 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 deal with procedure for imposing major penalties and action on the Inquiry Report. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as evidence on record. 7. Rules 14 and 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 deal with procedure for imposing major penalties and action on the Inquiry Report. Rule 15(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules reads as under: “(2) The disciplinary authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the report of the inquiry, if any, held by the disciplinary authority or where the disciplinary authority is not the inquiring authority, a copy of the report of the inquiring authority together with its own tentative reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of inquiring authority on any article of charge to the Government servant who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation or submission to the disciplinary authority within fifteen days, irrespective of whether the report is favourable or not to the Government servant.” 8. A perusal of the said Rule thus demonstrates that in a case where the Disciplinary Authority is not the Inquiring Authority, then on receipt of the Inquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the report with its own together with its own tentative reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of the Inquiring Authority or any article of charge to the Government servant who shall be required to submit, if he so desires his representation or submission to the Disciplinary Authority. 9. Thus, careful perusal of Rule 15 (2) demonstrates that there is no power conferred upon the Disciplinary Authority that upon receipt of the Inquiry Report, the Authority can order the holding of a denovo inquiry, if the report of the Inquiring Officer does not appeals to the Disciplinary Authority. 10. Now in this backdrop, this Court would first refer to the impugned order, in terms whereof the Disciplinary Authority has ordered the denovo inquiry. The order has already been quoted in extensio hereinabove. A perusal of the order demonstrates that the reasons which weighed with the Disciplinary Authority while ordering denovo inquiry were (a) Inquiry Officer failed to appreciate the documentary evidence present in the case, (b) Inquiry Officer failed to give his assessment of evidence in respect of each charge, (c) Inquiry Officer failed to give reasons for his findings on each charge. It is on the premises of these three principles that the Disciplinary Authority held that there should be a denovo inquiry into the charges. Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.R. Deb (supra) has clearly held that Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules provides only for one inquiry, however, in a particular case where there has been no proper inquiry, then the Disciplinary Authority may ask the Inquiring Officer to record further evidence. 11. In Union of India and others Versus P. Thayagarajan (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court after taking note of its judgment in K.R. Deb (Supra) further explains that the Disciplinary Authority may ask the Inquiring Officer to record further evidence where there has been no proper inquiry, because of some serious defects having crept into the inquiry or some important witness not being available at the time of inquiry. But, said provisions would not enable the Disciplinary Authority to set aside the previous inquiry on the ground that the report of the Inquiring Officer does not appeals to the Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter, Hon’ble Supreme Court by referring to the facts involved in the case before it went on to hold that the basis on which the Disciplinary Authority set aside the inquiry in that case was that the procedure adopted by the Inquiring Officer was contrary to the relevant Rules which affected the rights of the party. 12. Incidently, therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with the Disciplinary Proceedings, which stood initiated under the provisions of C.R.P.F. Act, 1949 and Rules framed thereunder and while interpreting Rule 27 (c), Hon’ble Supreme Court held that said Rule enabled the Disciplinary Authority to record his findings on the report and to pass appropriate order including ordering a denovo inquiry in a case of the nature which was before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, from what has been taken note of hereinabove, this Court can safely conclude that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others Versus P. Thayagarajan (supra), was in the background of the facts before it, but the law which initially settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.R. Deb (supra) case has not been disturbed. 13. 13. It is also relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench in Smt. Indira Thakur and another Versus State of H.P. and another (supra), in which the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench after placing reliance on K.R. Deb (supra) as also Union of India and others Versus P. Thayagarajan (supra), held that the holding of the denovo inquiry was bad in law and respondents therein directed to take the Inquiry Report submitted by the Inquiry Officer to its logical conclusion. 14. Accordingly, in view of what has been observed hereinabove, this writ petition is allowed and order dated 05.01.2012 (Annexure P10), in terms whereof the Disciplinary Authority has ordered the holding of denovo inquiry is ordered to be quashed and set aside and so also the subsequent order of appointment of the representing officer dated 02.03.2012 (Annexure P11), as this Court holds that the Disciplinary Authority cannot order ‘denovo inquiry’. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was charge sheeted as far back as in the year 2010 and that the petitioner has now superannuated from service, in the peculiar facts of the case, this Court does not deems it proper to grant liberty to the Department concerned to proceed against the petitioner on the basis of the Inquiry Report already submitted, as the same will cause prejudice to the petitioner, more so in view of the fact that now the petitioner being no more in service, it may be difficult for him to defend himself in the Disciplinary Proceedings. 15. With these observations, the petition is disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.