ORDER : M. NAGAPRASANNA, J. The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following reliefs : A. Issue a Writ in the Nature of Certiorari by Quashing the Impugned Order dated 24-11-2024 in No. 1225989 DMA/ENQ-2/JBL-1/68/2023 dated 24-11-2024 passed by the Respondent No.2 - Director of Municipal Administration, Bengaluru as per Annexure-R herein, insofar as the Petitioners herein are concerned, by allowing this Writ Petition by this Hon’ble Court. B. Issue such any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The petitioners are before this Court calling in question an order dated 24.11.2024 by which an Enquiry Officer is appointed to conduct enquiry into the charge sheet issued against the petitioners. 3. Heard Sri.Sanjay S Katageri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5, Sri.B.Sharanabasava, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4. 4. The petitioners are working as employees of the Town Municipal Council, Kushtagi. They are in the cadres of Second Division Assistant, Bill Collector, Senior Health Inspector and Revenue Inspector. It transpires that some of the land owners are developers which comes within the precincts of Town Municipal Council, Kushtagi, seek release of 60% of the sites as they have an order for sale of 40% of the sites. The said release of the sites in the developed layout was within the domain of the Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Kushtagi. The said release that is done by the Chief Officer becomes the subject matter of allegations and the petitioners were placed under suspension on 06.02.2024. The said suspension comes to be challenged before this Court in W.P.Nos.101410/2024, 101411/2024, 101481/2024 and 101482/2024 and by an order dated 06.03.2024, the orders of suspension stood stayed. The issue in the subject lis is not with regard to the suspension of these petitioners. After placing these petitioners under suspension and that being stayed in separate writ petitions so filed, show cause notice cum charge sheet dated 01.03.2024 comes to be issued against the petitioners which was received by the petitioners on 13.03.2024. The petitioners are said to have submitted the reply to the show cause notice cum charge sheet issued by respondent No.2 on 14.03.2024. The petitioners are said to have submitted the reply to the show cause notice cum charge sheet issued by respondent No.2 on 14.03.2024. It is the case of the petitioners that none of the submissions that have been made in the reply to the charge sheet did merit consideration at the hands of the disciplinary authority but the disciplinary authority proceeded to appoint an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the allegations against these petitioners. It is this that forms the fulcrum of the subject lis. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the petitioners being Second Division Assistant, Bill Collector and other cadres, have no powers or have no role to play in the release of sites to the developer. It is the Chief Officer alone who has the power. It is not the case of the disciplinary authority even that the petitioners have a role to play in the release but charge sheet is issued and without considering the reply, the Enquiry Officer is appointed. On the other hand, the learned counsel Sri.B.Sharanabasava appearing for respondent No.4 and the learned HCGP would in unison submit that charges are framed against the petitioners. The petitioners have the remedy of their defense before the Enquiry Officer. There is no warrant of interference at the hands of this Court at this stage. Therefore, would seek dismissal of the petition. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. On 22.03.2018, the then Chief Officer of the Town Municipal Council, Kushtagi, release 40% of the plots in the layout formed for residential purposes in Sy.No.58/1 measuring 4 Acres and 29 Guntas. On 18.09.2018, the release gets confirmed. What remained was an extent of 60%. That was also released on 27.11.2018 by an order again of the then Chief Officer in respect of R.S.No.58/1. On 21.11.2019, the 1 st petitioner is appointed as First Grade Revenue Inspector to work at Town Municipal Council, Kushtagi, so also the 3 rd petitioner as Second Division Assistant, on 14.10.2020, the 2 nd petitioner as Bill Collector and 4 th petitioner as Senior Health Inspector. On 17.12.2021, the Town Municipal Council, Kushtagi through its Chief Officer issued Form No.3 to the land owners pertaining to Sy.No.118/5 and Sy.No.57. On 17.12.2021, the Town Municipal Council, Kushtagi through its Chief Officer issued Form No.3 to the land owners pertaining to Sy.No.118/5 and Sy.No.57. Newspaper report carried certain complaints regarding release of sites in favour of land owners without development of the layout to a complete extent. The allegations were made against the Town Municipal Council, Kushtagi. A joint spot inspection is said to have been conducted and a report in respect of three layouts and of incomplete work. On the said issue, two years thereafter, the petitioners were placed under suspension, pending departmental enquiry. The petitioners approached this Court in separate petitions. This Court grants an interim order of stay on 06.03.2024 in W.P.Nos.101410/2024, 101411/2024, 101481/2024 and 101482/2024. During the pendency of those writ petitions, the petitioners filed their reply to the charges along with all necessary documents. I deem it appropriate to notice one of the reply so submitted: To each of the allegations made, elaborate reply is submitted. What is considered is found in the impugned order. The impugned order of appointing the Enquiry Officer reads as follows: 8. The preamble to the order is only a narration of what is found in the charge sheet. There is no consideration of the reply submitted by any of these petitioners, one of which is quoted hereinabove and an Enquiry Officer is appointed directly. It is not that in every case, the Court would interfere at different stages of conduct of a departmental enquiry, but if the reply of the petitioners is found to be satisfactory, it would not carry forward the departmental enquiry itself. Therefore, there is some semblance of responsibility of consideration of the reply by the disciplinary authority before appointing the Enquiry Officer as the Enquiry Officer is appointed to conduct an enquiry on the charges leveled against the petitioners. If the charges leveled against the petitioners need not be proceeded with on acceptance of the reply, there need not be a rigmarole of a departmental enquiry against these petitioners. In that light, it is necessary for the disciplinary authority to consider the reply submitted by the petitioners and pass necessary orders therein, in accordance with law. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER [I] The Writ Petition stands disposed. [II] The charge sheet issued against the petitioners is not interfered with. In that light, it is necessary for the disciplinary authority to consider the reply submitted by the petitioners and pass necessary orders therein, in accordance with law. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER [I] The Writ Petition stands disposed. [II] The charge sheet issued against the petitioners is not interfered with. [III] The disciplinary authority shall now consider the reply submitted by these petitioners to the show cause notice cum charge sheet and pass necessary orders thereon as to whether departmental enquiry against these petitioners would become necessary and take further action in the matter bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order. Ordered accordingly.