ORDER : 1. By way of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.07.2020, whereby the respondent No.2 - the District Collector (Land Records), Sirohi has ordered to conduct de-novo inquiry against the petitioner. 2. Shorn of unwarranted details, the facts appertain are that a disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the petitioner by way of memorandum of charges dated 30.10.2017 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1958”). 3. After completion of the disciplinary inquiry, the Inquiry Officer gave his report dated 16.03.2018, which was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5455/2018). 4. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court examined the matter in detail and found that the petitioner was not granted proper opportunity of hearing and mandate of Rules 16(6) and 16(10) of the Rules of 1958 have not been followed and thus quashed and set aside the inquiry report and the order dated 28.03.2018, passed by the respondent No.2 and remanded the matter back to the Inquiry Officer (respondent No.2). 5. In furtherance of the order passed by this Court in the writ petition aforesaid, the matter was taken up by the respondent No.2 afresh and by order dated 15.05.2018, the Inquiry Officer namely the Sub-Divisional Officer, Reodar was asked to take up the proceedings afresh and re-conduct the inquiry against the petitioner, as directed by this Court. 6. During the pendency of the inquiry, the petitioner moved an application before the respondent No.2 – the disciplinary authority and requested to change the Inquiry Officer, whereupon by way of order dated 20.12.2018, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pindwara was appointed an Inquiry Officer. 7. Thereafter inquiry proceedings were taken up, in which the Tehsildar, Pindwara represented the State’s case as iSjksdkj (departmental representative). 8. The Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report dated 15.06.2020 and concluded that no charge is proved against the petitioner. 9. When the inquiry report dated 15.06.2020 was placed for consideration of the disciplinary authority, (the respondent No.2) he ordered for de-novo inquiry, by an order dated 28.07.2020 addressed to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pindwara 10. Impugning said order dated 28.07.2020, Mr. R.S. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the disciplinary authority has seriously erred in directing a fresh inquiry without recording any reason. 11. Impugning said order dated 28.07.2020, Mr. R.S. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the disciplinary authority has seriously erred in directing a fresh inquiry without recording any reason. 11. Learned counsel argued that if the disciplinary authority did not agree with the findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer, he was required to record reasons for the same. 12. Reading the order impugned dated 28.07.2020, passed by the District Collector (Land Records), Sirohi (respondent No.2), Mr. Choudhary argued that the only reason given in the order is that the Tehsildar, Land Record in the Office of the Collector, Sirohi was appointed as departmental representative and his view point is not included in the inquiry report. He added that the departmental representative had filed his reply and made his submissions and, therefore, the reasons given in the order under consideration are factually incorrect and the order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 13. Learned counsel further submitted that vide communication dated 28.07.2020 addressed to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pindwara, the respondent No.2 - the District Collector (Land Records), Sirohi has not only ordered for de-novo inquiry against the petitioner; but has also appointed new departmental representative (Tehsildar – Sirohi) for the purpose of the ensuing inquiry. 14. Mr. Mrigraj Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the order dated 28.07.2020 though not happily worded, is just and proper in the factual backdrop. 15. Learned counsel invited Court’s attention towards the order dated 17.01.2018, whereby the Sub-Divisional Officer, Reodar was appointed as Inquiry Officer and the Tehsildar Land Record, District Collector, Sirohi a departmental representative, and highlighted that regardless of the change of the Inquiry Officer, the Tehsildar Land Record, Sirohi alone was maintained as departmental representative. He argued that the Inquiry Officer (Sub-Divisional Officer, Pindwara) has illegally appointed the Tehsildar Reodar to work as departmental representative. 16. Inviting attention towards sub-rule (5) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958, Mr. Rathore argued that it is the disciplinary authority alone who can appoint departmental representative and not the Inquiry Officer. 17. He submitted that if the record of the case is considered in its entirety, it is clear that State’s interest has not been safeguarded by the concerned departmental representative. Rathore argued that it is the disciplinary authority alone who can appoint departmental representative and not the Inquiry Officer. 17. He submitted that if the record of the case is considered in its entirety, it is clear that State’s interest has not been safeguarded by the concerned departmental representative. He argued that as instead of Tehsildar Land Record, District Collector, Sirohi, the Tehsildar, Pindwara has represented the department without any authority the proceedings were vitiated. 18. Lastly, Mr. Rathore, learned counsel for the State argued that a perusal of the inquiry report clearly shows that the departmental representative, who represented the State has even gone to the extent of conceding in petitioner’s favour and, therefore, inquiry cannot be said to be a fair inquiry, conducted by the Inquiry Officer. Hence, the disciplinary authority was legally justified in discarding such inquiry report furnished by the Inquiry Officer and ordering for de-novo inquiry. 19. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties. Perused the material available on record. 20. A perusal of the series of orders namely orders dated 17.01.2018, 15.05.2018 and 20.12.2018 reveals that due to some confusion or otherwise the copies of the orders have been endorsed to Tehsildar, Pindwara, but so far as order of appointing departmental representative is concerned, the Tehsildar Land Record, Sirohi alone was appointed as departmental representative. The Tehsildar, Pindwara was never appointed departmental representative by the respondent No.2. 21. In the opinion of this Court, the Inquiry Officer had no authority or power to appoint departmental representative of his own choice. The disciplinary proceedings conducted by the Inquiry Officer, Sub-Divisional Officer, Pindwara is, therefore, clearly vitiated, given the nature of assistance given by the departmental representative. 22. True it is, that the order impugned dated 28.07.2020, passed by the District Collector (Land Records), Sirohi does not contain reasons, as has been pointed out or stated by Mr. Rathore, learned counsel for the respondent – State and the impugned order is not clear, but in the ultimate analysis, this Court is of the view that by ordering de-novo inquiry, the respondent No.2 has not committed any error. 23. Rathore, learned counsel for the respondent – State and the impugned order is not clear, but in the ultimate analysis, this Court is of the view that by ordering de-novo inquiry, the respondent No.2 has not committed any error. 23. It is a case, where fresh inquiry could have been ordered by the Inquiry Officer, as the case squarely falls within the scope of Rule 16(9) of the Rules of 1958, which unequivocally use the expression - “in case it has reason to believe that the inquiry already conducted has been laconic in some respect or the other”. 24. The expression used in proviso to sub-rule (9) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 is wide enough to bring within its fold, the facts obtaining in the present case. 25. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. 26. The order impugned dated 28.07.2020, passed by the District Collector (Land Records), Sirohi is hereby quashed and set aside. 27. The respondent No.2 shall be free to pass fresh order, in accordance with law without being influenced by whatever has been observed by this Court hereinabove. The Inquiry Officer already appointed or to be appointed by respondent No.2 shall conduct the inquiry in accordance with law and try to complete the same within a period of six months. The Tehsildar (Land Records), Sirohi, who was firstly nominated as departmental representative shall act as departmental representative. 28. Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.