Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35994-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 136 of 2025 Appellant :- Rimple Bindra Respondent :- Indian Bank And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ajeet Kumar Chaurasiya,Akhilesh Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Amrish Sahai Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. This appeal arises out of judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 14.2.2025 in Writ-A No.19964 of 2024. Relevant portion of the order of learned Single Judge reads as under:- "Heard Shri Namit Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Amrish Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent and learned Standing Counsel for the State. The petitioner has assailed the order of de novo enquiry. The impugned order records the following reasons for ordering the de novo enquiry under Regulation 7 of the Indian Bank Employees(Discipline and Appeal Rules), 1976. The relevant portion of the order is hereunder: "On perusal of minutes of the regular inquiry proceedings, PO Brief and IA findings, following serious infirmities were observed in the conduct of inquiry- - The charges were dropped by the IA and the PO during the course of the inquiry without obtaining permission from the Disciplinary Authority. - The Exhibits were not introduced in the inquiry. - The IA and PO have conducted the inquriy with absolute negligence and have diluted the inquiry process. - The entire purpose of the inquiry has been compromised." The order depicts due application of mind to relevant facts and has been passed in lawful exercise of powers vested by the Service Rules. There is no infirmity in the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed." Although learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no procedure stipulated in the applicable rules which requires the inquiry officer to obtain permission from the disciplinary authority before dropping the charges yet, we are not convinced with such submissions. The inquiry officer is supposed to conduct inquiry into the charges against the delinquent employee. It is not the jurisdiction of the inquiry officer to drop the charges. The disciplinary authority otherwise has ample jurisdiction to reject the inquiry report if the inquiry has not been found to be conducted, in accordance with law. Since the inquiry officer has dropped one of the charges without conducting inquiry, we find no error in the decision of the disciplinary authority to direct holding of de novo inquiry. Judgment of Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J., in such circumstances, merits no interference. In the facts of the case, we direct that de novo inquiry shall be conducted, expeditiously, by fixing weekly dates without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. The appeal, consequently, is dismissed. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 RA Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad