JUDGMENT : Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J. 1. Heard. 2. Though this Court allowed the amendment application of the petitioner vide order dated 29.08.2024 but the amendment has not been incorporated at appropriate place, therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to incorporate the amendment at appropriate place indicating the date of the impugned order and the annexure number thereof properly, during the course of day. 3. This Court has passed the order dated 22.08.2024,which reads as under:- "1. Heard Sri Upendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jogendra Nath Verma, learned Standing Counsel for the State-opposite parties no.1, 2 & 3. 2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed following main reliefs:- "1. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned suspension order dated 15.12.2022 passed by respondent no.2 on the recommendation of the respondent no.3 and impugned charge sheet dated 20.01.2023 issued by the respondent no.1 on the recommendation of the respondent no.3 against the petitioner (Annexure No.1 & 2 to the writ petition.) 2. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to make the payment of salary regularly month to month as and when it falls due. 3. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the arrears of salary with 18% interest. 4. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to harass the petitioner in any manner on the name of alleged inquiry." 3. The precise contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that pursuant to the impugned suspension order dated 15.12.2022, the petitioner was placed under suspension. Thereafter, Inquiry Officer was appointed and the petitioner was given charge sheet on 20.01.2023. The aforesaid disciplinary inquiry was concluded on 05.07.2023 whereby none of the charges has been proved against the petitioner. As per the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 1999"), after conclusion of disciplinary inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submits its inquiry report and findings before the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority passes appropriate order finalizing the disciplinary proceedings. As per the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 1999"), after conclusion of disciplinary inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submits its inquiry report and findings before the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority passes appropriate order finalizing the disciplinary proceedings. Undisputedly, in the present case, the disciplinary/ appointing authority of the petitioner is the State Government and any appropriate decision in the case of the petitioner after concluding the disciplinary proceedings could have been taken by the disciplinary authority but before taking any appropriate decision by the disciplinary authority on the findings of the inquiry report, the Director General of Police/ Commandant General, Home Guards, U.P., Lucknow preferred a letter dated 29.08.2023 (Annexure No.31) to the Additional Chief Secretary of the Home Guards Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow indicating therein that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are not appropriate, such departmental inquiry has been conducted in a cursory manner, therefore, the findings of the Inquiry Officer may be rejected and direction for fresh inquiry may be issued. 4. Sri Upendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has rightly submitted that after initiating the departmental inquiry against any employee, no officer can come within the Inquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority inasmuch as after conclusion of the departmental inquiry, the appropriate decision may only be taken by the disciplinary authority independently without being influenced from the opinion of any other authority but in the present case, the Director General of Police/ Commandant General, Home Guards, U.P., Lucknow has influenced the disciplinary authority to reject the inquiry report and to pass order for fresh departmental enquiry saying that that departmental inquiry has been concluded in a cursory manner and after being influenced from such letter of the Director General of Police/ Commandant General, Home Guards, the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 17.05.2024 for conducting fresh inquiry against the petitioner, therefore, the Office Memo dated 17.05.2024 has been passed in utter violation of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1999. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that if the fresh departmental inquiry would be conducted against the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 17.05.2024, the petitioner would remain under suspension inasmuch as the impugned suspension order dated 15.12.2022 has not been revoked/ cancelled and about one year and nine months' period has passed since the petitioner is under suspension and the law is trite that prolonged suspension is not acceptable unless there is any cogent reason to that effect. In the present case, final order could have been passed by the disciplinary authority in the month of July, 2023 when the departmental inquiry was concluded against the petitioner but on account of unwarranted and unauthorized action on the part of the Director General of Police/ Commandant General, Home Guards, the petitioner is under suspension, therefore, Sri Singh has requested that the impugned suspension order may be set aside. 6. Matter requires consideration. 7. Let a short counter affidavit be filed by opposite party no.2 i.e. Joint Secretary, Home Guards, Civil Secretariat, U.P., Lucknow within a period of ten days to explain under which provision of law, he has passed the order dated 17.05.2024 when the Inquiry Officer has submitted his findings exonerating the petitioner but on the letter being issued by the Director General of Police/ Commandant General, Home Guards, U.P., Lucknow on 29.08.2023, he passed the aforesaid order dated 17.05.2024. 8. List this case on 12.09.2024 as fresh. 9. This matter may be taken up after fresh cases." 4. Sri Vikas Singh, learned Standing Counsel has apprised that the short counter affidavit has been filed on 20.09.2024. 5. The short question involved in this writ petition is that as to whether after conclusion of the departmental inquiry, the inquiry report should be submitted before the Disciplinary Authority for taking appropriate decision or any other authority may intervene before taking any final decision or before passing any final order by the Disciplinary Authority. 6. To appreciate the aforesaid question, Rule 8 & 9 of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 (here-in-after referred to as the "Rules, 1999") would be relevant to be examined. For convenience, Rule 8 & 9 read as under:- "8. Submission of Inquiry Report. - When the inquiry is complete, the Inquiry Officer shall submit its inquiry report to the disciplinary authority alongwith all the records of the inquiry. For convenience, Rule 8 & 9 read as under:- "8. Submission of Inquiry Report. - When the inquiry is complete, the Inquiry Officer shall submit its inquiry report to the disciplinary authority alongwith all the records of the inquiry. The inquiry report shall contain a sufficient record of brief facts, the evidence and statement of the findings on each charge and the reasons thereof. The Inquiry Officer shall not make any recommendation about the penalty. 9. Action on Inquiry Report. - (1) The disciplinary authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, remit the case for re-inquiry to the same or any other Inquiry Officer under intimation to the charged Government servant. The Inquiry Officer shall thereupon proceed to hold the inquiry from such stage as directed by the disciplinary authority, according to the provisions of Rule 7. (2) The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on any charge, record its own findings thereon for reasons to be recorded. (3) In case the charges are not proved, the charged Government servant shall be exonerated by the disciplinary authority of the charges and inform him accordingly; (4) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all or any of charges is of the opinion that any penalty specified in Rule 3 should be imposed on the charged Government servant, he shall give a copy of the inquiry report and his findings recorded under sub-rule (2) to the charged Government servant and require him to submit his representation if he so desires, within a reasonable specified time. The disciplinary authority shall, having regard to all the relevant records relating to the inquiry and representation of the charged Government servant, if any, and subject to the provisions of Rule 16 of these rules, pass a reasoned order imposing one or more penalties mentioned in Rule 3 of these rules and communicate the same to the charged Government servant." 7. Rule 8 of the Rules, 1999 categorically provides that when the inquiry is complete, the Inquiry Officer shall submit its inquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority along with all the records of the inquiry. Rule 9 (1) of the Rules, 1999 provides that the Disciplinary Authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, remit the case for re-inquiry to the same or any other Inquiry Officer under intimation to the charged Government servant. Rule 9 (1) of the Rules, 1999 provides that the Disciplinary Authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, remit the case for re-inquiry to the same or any other Inquiry Officer under intimation to the charged Government servant. Rule 9 (2) of the Rules, 1999 provides that the disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on any charge, record its own findings thereon for reasons to be recorded. 8. The present case is a glaring example of the violation of the rules inasmuch as in the present case the departmental inquiry was concluded on 05.07.2023 whereby none of the charges have been proved against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority, in the case of the present petitioner, is the State Government and appropriate decision may be taken by the Disciplinary Authority under Rule 9. 9. In the case of the petitioner, the Director General of Police/ Commandant General, Home Guards, U.P., Lucknow preferred a letter dated 29.08.2023 to the Disciplinary authority i.e. Additional Chief Secretary of the department indicating therein that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are not appropriate as the departmental inquiry has been conducted and concluded in cursory manner, therefore, findings of the Inquiry Officer may be rejected and the direction for fresh inquiry may be issued. 10. The aforesaid letter dated 29.08.2023 preferred by the Director General concerned is patently illegal, arbitrary and uncalled for and without jurisdictional in terms of Rule 8 and 9 of the Rules, 1999 for the reason that the Director General has got no say or authority to request the Disciplinary Authority to direct for re-inquiry. This power vests with the Disciplinary Authority under Rule 9 to agree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer or not to agree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and in both the case there is a specific modality to do the needful. 11. By means of the short counter affidavit the reason has been given that there is some government order which authorizes the departmental authority to submit her/ his opinion before the Disciplinary Authority but Rule 8 & 9 of the Rules, 1999 do not permit the same. Therefore, by means of any government order specific rule may not circumvented. The law is trite on the point that the Government Order may supplant the rules but may not supplement the same. 12. Therefore, by means of any government order specific rule may not circumvented. The law is trite on the point that the Government Order may supplant the rules but may not supplement the same. 12. In view of the above, since there is an error apparent on the face of record, therefore office order dated 17.05.2024 (Annexure no. 34) passed by the Joint Secretary of the Department for directing re-inquiry is hereby set aside/ quashed. 13. The Disciplinary Authority shall take appropriate decision on the inquiry report dated 05.07.2023, strictly in accordance with law, to be more precise, under Rule 9 of the Rules, 1999. 14. Since no appropriate decision has been taken by the Disciplinary Authority on the inquiry report dated 05.07.2023 till date under Rule 9 of the Rules, 1999 and the impugned decision so taken on 17.05.2024(supra) which has been set aside being without jurisdiction and illegal, therefore, the suspension order dated 15.12.2022 passed by the opposite party No.2, which is contained as Annexure No.1, is hereby set aside/ quashed as more than 1 year and 9 months have been passed, since then the petitioner is under suspension. 15. It is needless to say that the revival of the departmental inquiry and the charge-sheet dated 20.01.2023 shall remain subject to the decision being taken by the Disciplinary Authority under Rule 9 of the Rules, 1999. If any decision is taken by the Disciplinary Authority for revival of the departmental inquiry and the charge-sheet, the appropriate order to that effect shall be passed following the due procedure of law. 16. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed. 17. No order as to cost.