JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, challenged Annexure P­10, dated 11.05.2022, in terms whereof, the Disciplinary Authority has appointed a fresh Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges against the petitioner. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that vide Memorandum dated 23.07.2020 (Annexure P­3), the petitioner was informed that the Department intended to hold an inquiry against the petitioner on the Article of Charges appended thereto and the petitioner was called upon to submit her response thereto. It appears that as the Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with the stand of the petitioner, an Inquiry Officer was appointed, who completed the inquiry and submitted the Inquiry Report to the Disciplinary Authority. In terms of the impugned order, the Disciplinary Authority while holding that the Inquiry Report was not satisfactory has ordered fresh inquiry in the matter by appointing another Inquiring Officer. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition. 4. The stand of the State as is evident from the reply etc. filed by it is that as the report of the Inquiring Officer was found silent on the Article of Charges and no responsibility stood fixed on the defaulters and as even after the remand of the matter to the Inquiring officer, the Inquiry Report was not found to be satisfactory, it is in this background that fresh inquiry was ordered in the interest of justice. 5. The Memorandum has been issued to the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, which deals with procedure for imposing minor penalty. In terms of this Rule, subject to sub­rule (5) of Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, no order imposing on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in clause (i) to (iv) of Rule 11 shall be made except after informing the Government servant in writing of the proposal to do so and of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it proposed to be taken, and after giving him reasonable opportunity in this regard to the officer to put forth his case. Rule­16 further provides that the inquiry shall be held by the Disciplinary Authority in the manner laid down in sub­rules (3) to (23) of rule 14 of the CCA (CCA) Rules. 6. Rule­16 further provides that the inquiry shall be held by the Disciplinary Authority in the manner laid down in sub­rules (3) to (23) of rule 14 of the CCA (CCA) Rules. 6. Now, incidently in this case the Disciplinary Authority held an inquiry by exercising a discretion so vested under Rule 16(1) (b). That being the case, the Disciplinary Authority was bound to proceed thereafter strictly in accordance with Rule­16 and in terms of the provisions of this Rule, there is no power vested in the Disciplinary Authority to either refer the matter back to the Inquiry Officer if it is not satisfied with the Inquiry Report or to order fresh inquiry. This is unlike Rule 15 (1), wherein the Disciplinary Authority if it is not the Inquiring Authority may for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the Inquiring Authority for further inquiry etc. It is while interpreting Rule 15 of the CCA (CCA) Rules that Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in K.R. Deb vs. Collector of Central Exercise, Shillong (supra) has been pleased to hold that said Rule provides for one inquiry and in circumstances so warranting the Disciplinary Authority may ask the Inquiry Officer to record further evidence, but there is no provision in Rule­15 for completely setting aside previous inquiry, on the ground that report of the Inquiry Officer or Officers does not appeals to the Disciplinary Authority and order denovo inquiry. This law has been followed by this Court in CWP No.3998 of 2019, titled Indira Thakur and another vs. State of H.P. and another, decided on 31.12.2019, as well as in CWPOA No.4194 of 2019, titled Krishnu Ram vs. The Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education & another, decided on 12.09.2022. 7. Incidentally, herein the Memorandum that has been issued to the petitioner is not for imposition of major penalty, but is for imposition of a minor penalty. That being the case, the Disciplinary Authority was bound to follow the procedure prescribed in Rule­16 and in terms whereof after the receipt of the Inquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority has to pass appropriate orders by following the procedure prescribed therein which, inter alia¸ does not entails either a denovo inquiry, i.e. holding of a fresh inquiry by appointing a fresh Inquiring Officer or remitting the matter back to the Inquiry Officer for recalling additional evidence etc. 8. 8. In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed. Annexure P­10 is quashed and set aside and the Disciplinary Authority is directed to proceed with the matter on the basis of the original Inquiry Report that was submitted by the Inquiring Officer and take the disciplinary proceedings to their logical conclusion within a period of four months from today. 9. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.