JUDGMENT T. R. Handa, J. -The petitioner Bansi Ram was employed as a constable in the 5th HI. P. S. S. 8. Battalion at Shamshi when he was informed by his Disciplinary Authority, namely, respondent No. 1 vide memo, dated 22-6-1974 found at Annexure-B that it was proposed to hold a departmental inquiry against him under Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, hereinafter called "the Rules". The substance of the imputations of the misconduct/mis-behaviour in respect of which the inquiry was proposed, a statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in respect of each article of charge as also a list of documents by which and a list of witnesses by whom the articles of charge were proposed to be substantiated were enclosed with the memorandum Annexure-B. The petitioner was directed to submit a written statement of his defence within ten days of the receipt of the memorandum and further to state whether he desired to be beard in person. The petitioner submitted his reply found at Annexure-C refuting the charges levelled against him. The reply submitted by the petitioner did not satisfy respondent No. 1 who decided to hold the inquiry against the petitioner and appointed one Shiv Singh DSP as the Inquiry Officer for the purpose. The charges levelled against the petitioner were in the following terms :— "On 1-6-1974 as well as in the morning of 2-6-1974 you were ordered by S. I. Milap Chand to report to him at 0830 hours on 2-6-1914 in order to accompany him to B Coy as he was carrying the say of SB Coy. You did not report to him at the stipulated time and remained absent from Unit Lines. L/Nk. Brij Lal No. 67831 was sent in search of you. On search you were found near water mill adjacent Unit Lines at about 10*05 a. m, under the influence of liquor.” 2. As per finding of the Inquiry Officer it had not been established if the petitioner had been ordered by S. I. Milap Chand on 1-64974 or on the morning of 2-6-1974 to accompany him to 4H Coy The inquiry Officer, however, found that the petitioner was under the influence of liquor in the morning of 2-6-1974. As per finding of the Inquiry Officer it had not been established if the petitioner had been ordered by S. I. Milap Chand on 1-64974 or on the morning of 2-6-1974 to accompany him to 4H Coy The inquiry Officer, however, found that the petitioner was under the influence of liquor in the morning of 2-6-1974. Respondent No. 1, the Disciplinary Authority, did not agree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on the first point and expressed the view that the complete charge as framed against the petitioner had been established. Respondent No I, therefore, on 3-11-19/5 issued a notice to the petitioner informing him about his views on the charges as farmed against the petitioner and calling upon him to show cause why penalty of dismissal from service be not imposed upon him, This was done vide memo, found at Annexure-D. 3. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 10th November, 975. A copy of this reply of the petitioner is found at Annexure-E, Thereafter respondent No, 1 passed his order, dated 1-12-1975 imposing the penalty of dismissal from service on the petitioner. A copy of this order is found at Annexure-F. The petitioner preferred an appeal against this order before respondent No. 2 which was dismissed by the latter vide his order, dated 4-8-1976 found at Annexure-H. 4. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution to seek the quashing of Annexures-D, F & H referred to above. 5 The main contention of the petitioner is that conduct of the departmental inquiry against him which ultimately resulted in the order of his dismissal from service involves serious violations of the mandatory provisions of the Rules as also of the principles of natural justice and was, therefore, vitiated. An order passed on the basis of such vitiated inquiry, according to the petitioner, is totally unsustainable in law Elaborating this contention, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner explained that the witnesses not included in the list were allowed to be examined on behalf of the prosecution for no valid reasons, that this was done to fill up lacuna in the prosecution evidence and that the petitioner was allowed no effective opportunity to defend himself. He further added that the Inquiry Officer violated the mandatory provisions of sub-rule (18) of Rule 14 of the Rules inasmuch as he did not question the petitioner on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the petitioner to explain the same although the petitioner had neither adduced any defence evidence nor had examined himself as his own witness. The findings of the Inquiry Officer and of the Disciplinary Authority, according to the further contention of the learned Counsel, were based on no evidence and the order of his dismissal was passed in an arbitrary manner. 6. The respondents in their counter-affidavit tried to justify the dismissal of the petitioner by maintaining that the departmental inquiry had been conducted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Rules and it involved no violation of any principle of natural justice. 7. The original record of the inquiry is available before me in Court. I have very minutely looked into the entire record with the help of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. On a perusal of this record, I entertain no doubt that this record not only reveals flagrant violations of the Rules as also of the principles of natural justice both on the part of the Inquiry Officer as also the Disciplinary Authority but it also reflects adversely on its faithfulness. The Inquiry Officer as I shall presently discuss, was during the course of the inquiry guided not by any rule of law or procedure but only by the within and fancy of the Disciplinary Authority or some of its advisors. The very manner in which this inquiry has been conducted would, in my view, provide every justification for quashing the impugned order of dismissal recorded against the petitioner. 8. The record of inquiry reveals that the first effective hearing in the course of inquiry was conducted on 28-8-1974 when the petitioner was questioned if he had received copies of the charge-sheet and understood the charge and if he pleaded guilty. After the petitioner pleaded not guilty, the statement of one of the prosecution witnesses, namely L/Nk. Brij Lal was recorded. On the sane day, that is, 28-8-1974 the statement of the petitioner in defence and on all the paints raised in the charge was recorded. After the petitioner pleaded not guilty, the statement of one of the prosecution witnesses, namely L/Nk. Brij Lal was recorded. On the sane day, that is, 28-8-1974 the statement of the petitioner in defence and on all the paints raised in the charge was recorded. The petitioner was also cross-examined by the Inquiry Officer, The case was then adjurned without fixing the next date, It was then next taken up on 26-9-1974 when the evidence of S. I Milap Chand (PW) was records. The case was adjourned to the following day, that is 27-9-1974—on which date the statement of the third witness, namely, Dharam Singh was recorded. It may be observed at this stage that as per list of witnesses annexed with the memo. Annexure-B there were only three prosecution witnesses, namely, L/Nk. Brij Lal, S I. Milap Chand and constable Dharam Singh. All the three had been examined by 27-9-1974, After examining the last witness on 27-9-1974, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 28-9-1974. it appears that he did not consider it necessary to afford the petitioner an opportunity to produce his defence presumably because the petitioner had earlier been examined on 28-8-1974, the day when the inquiry commenced. The fact, however, remains that the Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report on 28-9-1974. 9. The record further shows that the report of the Inquiry Officer was sent back to him by the Disciplinary Authority with certain observations and the same was received by the Inquiry Officer on 31-10-1974. The Inquiry Officer once again sent his inquiry report duly completed to the Disciplinary Authority on 7-11-1974. The record shows that no proceedings were conducted in between 3140 1974, the date when the first inquiry report was received back by the Inquiry Officer and 7-11-1974, the date when the second inquiry report was sent by him to the Disciplinary Authority. It shows that the Inquiry Officer made some changes in the inquiry report only. It may be added that neither the first inquiry report send on 28-9-1974 nor the second report sent on 7- 11 -1974 is found on the record. 10. The inquiry report sent on 7-11-1974 by the Inquiry Officer to the Disciplinary Authority was also received back by the former on .5-I2-1974. After the receipt of this report, the Inquiry Officer recorded the statement of Dr. 10. The inquiry report sent on 7-11-1974 by the Inquiry Officer to the Disciplinary Authority was also received back by the former on .5-I2-1974. After the receipt of this report, the Inquiry Officer recorded the statement of Dr. Shukre whose name did not find mention in the list of witnesses. This was done on 16-6-1975. As stated earlier, during the intervening period between 5-12-1974 to 19-6-1975, the Inquiry Officer had only record ed the statement of Dr. Shukre without affording the petitioner an opportunity to rebut that, The Inquiry Officer once again submitted his inquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority on 19-64975. 11. The inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer on 19-6-1975 was once again received back by him on 6-7-19/5. After the receipt of this report the Inquiry Officer examined yet another witness, namely, S. K Kishan Singh who also had not been mentioned in the list of witnesses attached with memorandum Annexure-B, PWs S. I, Milap Chand and Dr. Shukre were also examined further on 24-7-1975. The petitioner was then directed on 24-74975 to produce his defence witnesses, if any, for which purpose he had been allowed ten days time. The petitioner, however, stated as under : — "Pleas- refer to may letter No nil, dated 24-7-1975. I dont want to produce any defence witness.” This letter dated 2-7-1975 referred to in the above statement of the petitioner is, however, not on the record. 12. The inquiry report was then once again prepared by the Inquiry Officer on 8-8-1975 and submitted to the Disciplinary Authority. This is the only report which is found on the record and on the basis of which the Disciplinary Authority issued the impugned notice found at Annexure-D, Though the record of the Inquiry Officer is silent on the point, a reference to the record of the Disciplinary Authority found in its file [no. E-3/3-10-74-V (Inquiry) shows that the inquiry report, dated 8-8-1975 submitted by the Inquiry Officer was received in the Office of the Disciplinary Authority on 11-8-1975 and that it was once again returned to the Inquiry Officer on 12-8-1975 for some rectifications. There is a nothing at page J9ofthe rioting portion of this file which reads :— "The D. E. of Ct. Bansi Ram 67471 was received vide PUC. There is a nothing at page J9ofthe rioting portion of this file which reads :— "The D. E. of Ct. Bansi Ram 67471 was received vide PUC. There were still some discrepancies such as no further statement of S. L Milap Chand was recorded by E. O. The D. E. file handed over by hand to E. O. on 12-8-1975 for rectification please. Orders are solicited to file the papers pleased." The above note was written by some ASI who thereafter marked the file to the Head Clerk. The Head Clerk then recorded the following note : — “The D. E. files have been handed over to B. Coy presumably by ASI Ludar Chand receipt obtained please " At page 137 of the correspondence portion of this file there is found the covering letter of the Inquiry Officer with which the inquiry report, dated 8-8-1975 was submitted by him to the Disciplinary Authority. On the back of this Letter there are two endorsements. The first one reads "Received back (A & B files. There is some discrepancies" Sd/- S, 1. Ha bans Singh" The second endorsement reads : "Received back on 22-8 -1975 without covering letter. Sd/- 22-8-1975" 13. It is thus obvious that the Inquiry report, dated 8-8-1975 which was received in the office of the Disciplinary Authority on 11-8-1975 was also remitted to the Inquiry Officer and resubmitted by him on 22-8-1973. 14. The above resume of facts reads to the following conclusions : (i) The Inquiry Officer completed his inquiry at his end on 27-9-1974 after he had examined all the three prosecution witnesses named in the list attached with the memorandum found at Annexure-B : (ii) after completion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority on 28-9-1974 which was remitted to him by the latter on 31-10-:t974 ; (iii) thereafter the Inquiry Officer submitted his second inquiry report on 7-11-1974 which was also remitted to him by the Disciplinary Authority on 5-12-1974 ; (iv) the Inquiry Officer then submitted yet another report on 19-6-19/5 which was again remitted back to him by the Disciplinary Authority on 6-7-1275 ; (v) The Inquiry Officer then submitted his 4th inquiry report, dated 8-8-1975 which was received in the office of Disciplinary Authority on 11-8-1975 and was sent back to the Inquiry Officer for certain rectifications on 12-8-1975. The Inquiry Officer then resubmitted the report on 22-8-1975 (vi) the inquiry report, dated 8-8-1975 before it could reach its destination was intercepted by some subordinate of the Disciplinary Authority at his who at his own level returned H to the Inquiry Officer for certain rectifications. There is, however, no material available in the record produced in Court which could surrent the nature of such rectifications. Then inquiry report resubmitted by the Inquiry Officer on 22-8-1975, however, bears the, dated 8-8-1975 though it does not contain any corrections ; and (vii) after the case was remitted to him for second time, the Inquiry Officer examined Dr. Shukre, as a witness for the Disciplinary Authority though his name was not included in the list. Thereafter when then the case was remitted to him for the 3rd time, the inquiry Officer examined yet another witness Kishan Singh S. I. who was not a listed witness. PW 1, Milap Chand & Dr. .vhukro were further examined on 24-7-1975, 15. Now as per Scheme of the Rules, after the Inquiry Officer submits his report to the Disciplinary Authority, further action thereon is to be taken by the latter. Rule 15 (1) is the only provision found in the Rules which empowers the Disciplinary Authority to remit the case to the Inquiry Officer. This sub rule reads — "15 (1). The disciplinary authority if it is not itself the inquiring 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 14, as far as may be." 16. A reading of the above extracted sub-rule would show that this power to remit a case conferred on the Disciplinary Authority is not to be exercised as a matter of course or at the fancy of the Disciplinary Authority. This power can be exercised only in exceptional cases where further inquiry is considered necessary in the interest of justice and that also for reasons to be recorded. Further inquiry within the contemplation of this sub-rule, of course, means an inquiry falling within the purview of Rule 14. 17. This power can be exercised only in exceptional cases where further inquiry is considered necessary in the interest of justice and that also for reasons to be recorded. Further inquiry within the contemplation of this sub-rule, of course, means an inquiry falling within the purview of Rule 14. 17. In the instant case, the reasons which weighed with the Disciplinary Authority in remitting the case time and gain to the Inquiry Officer are not traceable from the available record. The presumption, therefore, is that no such reasons were recorded by the Disciplinary Authority. If it was so, the orders of the Disciplinary Authority remitting the case to the Inquiry Officer from time to time were void and further proceedings conducted by the Inquiry Officer after he submitted his first report on 28-9-1974 are all vitiated. 18. Assuming, that the Disciplinary Authority recorded such reasons in support of its various orders remitting the case to the Inquiry Officer and such orders cannot be called bad for want of reasons, the case could be remitted only for the limited purpose of conducting further inquiry by the Inquiry Officer in accordance with the provisions of Rule 14. The purpose of this further inquiry could be to record statements of witnesses included in the list of witnesses attached with the memorandum of charge-sheet who for some reasons could not be examined earlier or to remove some ambiguity in the evidence of such witnesses or to remove some other procedural defect in the inquiry. In any case, further inquiry could not be in violation of the procedure laid down in Rule 14. 19. Looking from this view, the examination of two additional witnesses, namely, Dr. Shukre and S. I. Kishan Singh by the Inquiry Officer after the case had been remitted to him by the disciplinary Authority cannot be justified. The only provisions under which the inquiry Officer could take additional evidence in is found in sub-rule (15) of Rule 14 of the Rules which reads :— "14(15). Shukre and S. I. Kishan Singh by the Inquiry Officer after the case had been remitted to him by the disciplinary Authority cannot be justified. The only provisions under which the inquiry Officer could take additional evidence in is found in sub-rule (15) of Rule 14 of the Rules which reads :— "14(15). If it shall appear necessary before the close of the case on behalf of the disciplinary authority, the inquiring authority may, in its discretion, allow the Presenting Officer to produce evidence not included in the list given to the Government servant or may itself call for new evidence or recall and re-examine any witness and in such case the Government servant shall be entitled to have, if he demands it, a copy of the list of further evidence proposed to be produced and an adjournment of the Inquiry for three clear days before the production of such new evidence, exclusive of the day of adjournment and the day to which the inquiry is adjurned. The inquiring authority shall give the Government servant an opportunity of inspecting such documents before they are taken on the record. The inquiring authority may also allow the Government servant to produce new evidence if it is of the opinion that the production of such evidence is necessary, in the interests of justice. Note :—New evidence shall not be permitted or called for or any witness shall not be recalled to fill up any gap in the evidence. Such evidence may be called for only when there is an inherent lacuna or defect in the evidence which has been produced originally. " 20. The opening words of this sub-rule, namely, "if it shall appear necessary before the close of the case on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority" suggest that the discretion vested in the Inquiry Officer udder this sub- rule to examine the additional witnesses can be exercised only before the case on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority is closed. The case on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority in this case had been closed long back on 27-9-1974 or latest by 28-9-1974 when the Inquiry Officer had finalized and submitted his inquiry report. The case on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority in this case had been closed long back on 27-9-1974 or latest by 28-9-1974 when the Inquiry Officer had finalized and submitted his inquiry report. No fresh evidence in the form of new witnesses could be allowed to be adduced after this date under the provision extracted above In any case, such new evidence could not be permitted to fill up any gap in the evidence on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority. Even if we ignore these procedural considerations, the rules of natural justice require that the petitioner should have been heard and cogent reasons should have been recorded in support of the action of the Inquiry Officer in allowing examination of additional witnesses not included in the list already filed and especially when the same was being done after the close of the case on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority. Again the record shows that at least one of these two additional witnesses, namely, S. I. Kishan Singh was examined without prior notice to the petitioner, who unrepresented as he was in the inquiry, could not be in a position to effectively cross-examine the wit .less and in fact the record shows that no such cross-examination was effected. The petitioner was certainly prejudiced in his defence on account of this act on the part of the Inquiry Officer in permitting the examination of new witnesses in the manner referred to above. Again there is no explanation how the various inquiry reports submitted by the Inquiry Officer have disappeared from the record. In all fairness these reports must have been kept on the record as to enable the Court to find out if there was any justification for the Disciplinary Authority in ordering remitting of the case time and again to the inquiry Officer, The absence of the letter, dated 24-7- 975 addressed by the petitioner to the Inquiry Officer and which persumably contained the explanation of the petitioner for not adducing his defence is yet another factor which shows that the record of the inquiry has not been faithfully maintained. 21. 21. In view of what has been stated above there is every justification to conclude that the injuiry conducted against the petitioner ultimately resulting in the order of his dismissal was neither fair nor impartial and it involved violation of not only the statutory Rules but also of the principles of natural justice. The dismissal of the petitioner following such an inquiry cannot be sustained. This writ petition is accordingly allowed and the orders found at Annexures-D, F & 14 as prayed (or, are quashed. The petitioner shall be deemed to have continued in service and entitled to all the benefits permissible to him under the Rules as if the impugned orders never existed. Petition allowed.