S. H. SHETH, J. ( 1 ) AT the material time the appellant was a Circle Inspector. On or about 24th September 1968 he was in charge of Moti Chandur Vibhag of Sami Taluka. The Government came to know that he was a party to the making of a bogus entry in Village Form No. VI and that he lacked integrity. Therefore they decided to hold a departmental enquiry against him. The charge which was levelled against the appellant was also the charge levelled against the Mamlatdar and it was the case of the department that in the matter of making the bogus entry in Village Form VI both had acted together and conjointly. ( 2 ) ON 27th July 1972 charge-sheet was served upon the appellant. It was a joint charge-sheet both against the Mamlatdar and the appellant and a joint enquiry was held against them. ( 3 ) THE Enquiry Officer held both the charges to have been proved. He therefore recommended the appellants dismissal from service. The competent authority the State Government issued notice to the appellant to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner sent his reply to the State Government. After having considered his reply the State Government ordered the appellants removal from service. ( 4 ) THAT order was challenged in Special Civil Application No. 1636 of 1978. It was heard by Mr. Justice P. D. Desai who rejected it summarily. The respondents therefore had no opportunity to reply to the appellants petition. ( 5 ) IT is that order recorded in the writ petition which is challenged by the appellant in this appeal. ( 6 ) MR. Patel who appears on behalf of the appellant has raised before us as many as five contentions:- (I) The appellant was given no opportunity to cross-examine the departmental witnesses. (II) The facts of the case do not prove the alleged misconduct against the appellant and therefore the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer was perverse. (III) The appellant was prejudiced in his defence because his own diary was not supplied to him even though he had requested the Enquiry Officer to make it available to him. (IV) The appellants removal from service is bad in law because whereas notice to show cause was issued by Mr. R. D. Patel the petitioner was removed from service by Mr. Vora. (IV) The appellants removal from service is bad in law because whereas notice to show cause was issued by Mr. R. D. Patel the petitioner was removed from service by Mr. Vora. (V) The joint enquiry held against the appellant and the Mamlatdar was bad in law and had prejudiced the appellant in defending himself. ( 7 ) THE last contention which Mr. Patel has raised is that the joint enquiry held against the Mamlatdar and the appellant was bad in law and had prejudiced the appellant. The record shows that it was the defence of the appellant that what he was alleged to have done was done by him at the instance of the Mamlatdar. The Mamlatdar in his turn has denied it. It is clear therefore that whereas according to the Mamlatdar he had no hand in what the appellant had done according to the appellant what he had done was done at the instance of the Mamlatdar. It is clear therefore that the defences of both were conflicting. The question which has arisen under these circumstances before us is whether the joint enquiry against the two delinquents having conflicting and contradictory defences prejudiced the appellant. A joint enquiry can be said to have been vitiated if prejudice has been caused thereby to one of the delinquents. Whether prejudice has been caused or not to any one of the delinquents is a question of fact in each case. The statement of defence which the appellant filed clearly stated that what was alleged against him was done by him at the instance of the Mamlatdar. The Enquiry Officer therefore knew well that the appellants defence was in conflict with the defence of the Mamlatdar co-delinquent. If the joint enquiry was not held he would have faced an independent inquiry. At such an independent inquiry he could have freely cross-examined the departmental witnesses because his superior the Mamlatdar his co-delinquent would not have been present and therefore the question of his presence deterring him from freely defending himself would not have arisen. Secondly he could have requested the Inquiry Officer to summon his co-delinquent for his cross-examination at a later stage. Secondly he could have requested the Inquiry Officer to summon his co-delinquent for his cross-examination at a later stage. If he had an opportunity to cross-examine departmental witnesses in one set without the presence of the Mamlatdar and if he had opportunity to cross-examine the Mamlatdar his co-delinquent in another set he could have tried to discover truth from their conflicting testimonies indeed if he could bring on record such a conflict. It is on account of these reasons that we feel that joint inquiry in this case has prejudiced the appellants defence. In that view of the matter the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. Ordinarily no joint inquiry in respect of the same allegation should be held against an officer and this subordinate if their defences are aimed at each other. We may add that we do not intend to lay down a rigid rule by making this observation. We only suggest the course of prudence which our judicial approach requires us to do. ( 8 ) IN the result The appeal is allowed the order made by the learned single Judge is set aside and the impugned order of the appelllants removal from service is quashed and set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. We further direct that the appellant shall be reinstated in service without any break and with continuity of service and shall be also entitled to all the back wages. It shall be open to the State Government if it so desires to hold a fresh enquiry against the appellant appeal allowed. .