On behalf of petitioner, it is submitted that the charges having been framed, enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report in which petitioner was not found guilty. When this report was sent up to the Disciplinary Authority, he rejected the report and ordered a de novo enquiry on the ground that the Enquiry Officer had not looked to some materials and his findings were not very clear. A fresh Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct de novo enquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in my opinion, rightly submits that there is no law which binds the Disciplinary Authority to accept the findings as given by the Enquiry Officer. In such a situation, the disciplinary proceedings could have proceeded with the Disciplinary Authority not agreeing with the enquiry report. It is again, in my view, rightly submitted that ordering a de novo enquiry, the authorities have to be very careful. It has serious consequences. A de novo enquiry cannot be ordered merely to get an order of guilt. It has to have a purpose. In view of the Disciplinary Authority, the Enquiry Officer could have been held guilty of misconducting himself or misconducting enquiry or deliberately shutting out materials, deliberately ignoring materials or giving finding without any basis. These are some of the grounds on which a de novo enquiry can be held but not merely on the ground that the findings
