JUDGMENT 1. The instant intra court appeal under Rule 134 of Rajasthan High Court Rules is preferred to question the legality and validity of the order dated 3.8.2022 passed by the learned Single Bench, whereby writ petition No.9779/2008 preferred by the respondent was allowed and the order dated 29.3.2008 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order dated 11.9.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority under Bank of Baroda Officers and Employees (Disciplinary and Appeals) Regulations 1976 were quashed and the appellant employer was permitted to conduct denovo inquiry against the respondent employee. 2. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by Ms.Shagun Mathur and Mr.Saurabh Surana learned counsel representing the appellants and Shri B.S.Sandhu Advocate representing the respondent and have gone through the impugned order and the documents placed on record with the writ petition. 3. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent on account of prolonged absence from duty. It is alleged that the respondent did not choose to appear before the Inquiry Officer despite service of notice and repeated intimations. Accordingly, ex-parte inquiry was initiated. Inquiry Officer submitted a report dated 28.6.2007. However, a bare perusal of this report would indicate that no conclusions were drawn by the Inquiry Officer in the report. It is further relevant to mention here that neither any oral evidence was led nor any documents were produced by the employer during the course of inquiry. On receiving the Inquiry Officer's report, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order dated 29.3.2008 a perusal whereof would clearly indicate that before imposing major penalty of removal from service, neither any notice was issued nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to the respondent. The Disciplinary Authority expressed in the order that the findings of the report of the Inquiry Officer were being accepted/approved, however as indicated above, no findings whatsoever were recorded in the inquiry report. 4. In this background, we are of the firm opinion that the inquiry proceedings were clearly vitiated on account of non-proving of the charges by leading evidence as has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in AIR 2010 SC 3131 . 4. In this background, we are of the firm opinion that the inquiry proceedings were clearly vitiated on account of non-proving of the charges by leading evidence as has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in AIR 2010 SC 3131 . Consequently, the learned Single Bench was perfectly justified in setting aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority as affirmed by the Appellate Authority and remanding the matter to the Inquiry Officer for conducting a denovo inquiry. 5. For the sake of clarification, it is observed that the respondent employee shall be permitted to participate in the denovo inquiry by giving him appropriate intimation of the date/dates of hearing. The respondent employee shall furnish his mobile number and email address to the appellant employer so that prior intimation regarding date of hearing can be sent to him. However, as the respondent failed to submit reply in pursuance of the notices issued to him by the Inquiry Officer, he shall be precluded from filing any reply before the Inquiry Officer. Nonetheless, the respondent will be allowed to cross-examine the departmental witnesses and shall also be permitted to lead evidence in defence if so desired. 6. With the above observations and modifications, the instant special appeal is disposed of.