IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.WP No. 13771 of 2011. [O&M] Date of Decision: 2nd August, 2011. Subhash Padam Petitioner through Mr. Raj Karam Singh Verka, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] Notice of motion. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, learned DAG, Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice. Keeping in view the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no need at this stage to seek reply of the respondents. The petitioner is a Tehsildar who was charge-sheeted under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Service [Punishment and Appeal] Rules, 1970. The petitioner's reply to the charge-sheet was not found satisfactory and a retired IAS Officer was appointed as the Inquiry Officer who vide his report dated 11.12.2007 exonerated the petitioner of the charges by extending the benefit of doubt. The Competent Authority, namely, the Financial Commissioner vide the impugned order dated 13.05.2011 has rejected the afore-stated inquiry report after observing that the Inquiry Officer has relied upon the medical evidence of a private Doctor from Haryana State regarding fitness and mental alertness of Smt. Reshma. Some other reasons have also been assigned to reject the inquiry report. The Competent Authority has appointed one Amit Kumar, IAS, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Moonak, District Sangrur to “re-assess the witness and evidence and to inquire into the allegations levelled in the charge-sheet”. The petitioner's grievance is that the aforesaid order amounts to de-novo inquiry which is impermissible in view of Rule 9 [1] of the 1970 Rules which reads as follows:- “Rule 9 Action on the inquiry report:- [1] The punishing authority, if it is not itself the inquiry authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the inquiring authority for further inquiry and report and the inquiring authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of rule 8 as far as may be”. Heard learned counsel for the parties, In my considered view, Rule 9[1] ibid empowers the Punishing Authority to reject an inquiry report for the reasons to be recorded in writing and proceed to hold “further inquiry” as per the procedure prescribed in Rule 8 of the Rules. The expression “further inquiry” can not be restricted to mean to commence the inquiry from the stage it was left by the previous Inquiry officer. The expression 'further inquiry' is of wide amplitude and it includes summoning of fresh evidence as well as appreciation of evidence already on record. Similarly, there is no compulsion for the Competent Authority to entrust the inquiry to the same Officer who had held the inquiry earlier. In the instant case, the Competent Authority has observed that the Inquiry Officer – a retired IAS Officer has not appreciated the nature of allegations in their correct perspective. In these circumstances, the conclusion drawn by the Disciplinary Authority in not accepting the said inquiry report calls for no interference by this Court especially when the assignment given to the new Inquiry Officer tantamounts to 'further inquiry' for all intents and purposes. Dismissed. Dasti. August 02, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE