By reversing the clauses, you change the order of events.
In the first version of the sentence, the following happens:
1. The House initiates an inquiry.
2. Charges are laid.
In the second version of the sentence, it's the reverse:
1. Charges are laid.
2. The House initiates an inquiry.
(Note that in the second version, the syntax results in a possible ambiguous interpretation. Does the House initiate the inquiry—this is the more reasonable interpretation—or do the charges themselves result in an automatic inquiry?)
It's possible that both things actually happen at the same time or that they are essentially indistinguishable, but quite unlikely. It's much more likely that, in reality, the inquiry has to come before the charges.
(Note that it's also possible to think there is a missing by in front of charging in the first sentence. If that's the case, then the first sentence actually does mean the same thing as the second—because the use of by would also reverse the sequence of events. However, since the sentence doesn't actually contain by, I am interpreting it literally.)
Regardless of what happens at a practical level, in terms of the syntax of the sentence, by reversing the order of the clauses you reverse the order in which the ideas are presented as occurring.