( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner who isan employee on the establishment of Governmenttool Room and Training Centre, has prayedfor quashing an order by which the penalty ofreduction to the starting point of his pay scalehad been imposed he a disciplinary proceedingsheld against him. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are these:- The petitioner was working as a Machinist Gr. IV at Government Tool Room and Trainingcentre, Bangalore, in the year 1985. He was thepresident of the Government Tool Room andtraining Centre, Unit of Bangalore Mazdoorsangh, a Trade Union, registered under thetrade Unions Act. It appears that, on 16th July,1985, one Hemanth Kumar, a workman ofrespondent-1 was taken to police station at 11. 45a. m. in connection with a complaint said to havebeen lodged against the said workmen. All theworkmen of the Tool Room got agitated aboutthe taking of Hemanth Kumar to the policestation. According to the petitioner, some timeearlier also a false complaint had been lodgedagainst Hemanth Kumar and he had been putto considerable harassment and torture in thepolice station and ultimately it was found thatthe complaint of theft lodged against him wasfalse. It is in this background, according to thepetitioner, the workers got agitated and thereforeall the workers left the work spot and went tothe Police Station and they returned to work onlywhen Hemanth Kumar was released. For nearlytwo and half hours the workers had struck work. In the circumstances, disciplinary proceedingswere instituted against the petitioner by issuing an Article of Charge on 5-9-1985. The relevant portion of the allegations levelled against the petitioner reads:- charge SHEET"it has been reported against you as under: on 16th July, 1985 at 1. 40 p. m. you along with Mr. G. Badarinath, Tool and Die Maker grade-IV, incited the workmen to strike work and walk out. You gathered the workmen in the corridor in front of the director's office and were addressing them to stop work and walk out. You walked into various departments and forced them to walk out and join the gathering and further lead them to strike work and walk out of the Centre's premises. While you were in the act of instigating the workmen to strike work, Dy. General Manager (Adm.) came to you and enquired about what was happening. You along with Mr. G. Badarinath accused the Management of having got arrested by the Police Mr. While you were in the act of instigating the workmen to strike work, Dy. General Manager (Adm.) came to you and enquired about what was happening. You along with Mr. G. Badarinath accused the Management of having got arrested by the Police Mr. N. C. Hemanth kumar of false charges. Dy. General manager (Adm.) explained that Mr. N. C. Hemanth Kumar was taken by the Police only for interrogation as a witness in connection with the assault of one of our executives. Dy. General Manager (Adm.) also asked you to go back to your work spot along with the others. He even called you and Mr. G. Badarinath separately to his cabin and explained that the Management had to got arrested anybody and that management had not got arrested anybody and that you are making mistake in jumping into conclusions and also you were making mistake in inciting workmen to strike work. He advised you to go back to work along with the rest of the workmen. You refused and lead the workmen out of the premises. The above acts of yours, if proved, amounts to your committing the following misconducts under the Standing Orders applicable to you and the Centre. "after setting out the above incident, the charge sheet proceeded to state that the conduct of the petitioner amounted to wilful in sub-ordination and also various other misconducts falling under different Standing Orders as set out in the Article of Charges. An Inquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the inquiry, who submitted his report on 30th July, 1986, in which he held that the petitioner was guilty of the charge framed against him. The Disciplinary authority agreed with the findings recorded by the Inquiring Authority and passed the following order:"i have also gone through the findings of the enquiry officer and fully concur with the findings of the Enquiry Officer on each of the acts of misconduct proved against you. I have gone through your past service records to find if there are any extenuating or mitigating circumstances. I find from the records that there are no extenuation or mitigating circumstances. Each of the acts of misconduct proved against you are grave and serious in nature and warrant severe punishment. I have gone through your past service records to find if there are any extenuating or mitigating circumstances. I find from the records that there are no extenuation or mitigating circumstances. Each of the acts of misconduct proved against you are grave and serious in nature and warrant severe punishment. Though the Management would be fully justified in imposing severe punishment for the acts of misconduct proved against you, taking a lenient view, your grade will be reduced from the existing grade-IV to Grade-V and you will be paid basic pay of Rs. 490/- in the old scale and rs. 960/- in corresponding new scale i. e. , at the minimum of the scale in Grade-V. Accordingly, your grade has been reduced from Grade-IV to Grade-V at a basic pay of Rs. 490/- in the old scale and Rs. 960/- in the corresponding new scale, i. e. , at the minimum of the scale. Since all the charges framed in the charge-sheet dated 5-9-1985 have been proved against you and are found guilty of the said charges, you are deemed to be absent from duty for the period of suspension and shall not be entitled to any remuneration for the said period. Hence the sub-sistance allowance paid for the period 5-9-1985 till date of reinstatement will be recovered from your salary with effect from september 1987 in suitable instalments. You are hereby reinstated into service with effect from 1st September, 1987. "aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has presented this petition. ( 3 ) SRI S. B. Swethadri, learned Counsel for the petitioner, urged the following two contentions: (1) The finding recorded by the Inquiring authority is violative of the rules of natural justice, for the reason that he had relied on the evidence recorded against other delinquent employee Badrinath, though the said evidence had not been adduced in the inquiry held against the petitioner. (2) Though the Management had chosen to frame several charges under different Standing orders, in sum and substance the charge levelled against the petitioner was one and the same, namely, that he had resorted to an illegal strike and as in the present case the strike was not at all illegal as it did not contravene any provision of law, the charges themselves were not maintainable and in any event the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer that the petitioner had resorted to an illegal strike is perverse. ( 4 ) IN support of the first contention, the factual basis is found in para-2 of the writ petition. It reads:-"2. The Management has examined eleven witnesses in the enquiry proceedings relating to the petitioner. The Management has examined 17 witnesses in the Enquiry proceedings relating to Sri G. Badarinath. The Management has not examined the following witnesses in the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner whom they have examined in the proceedings against Sri. G. Badarinath. (1) Sri M. H. Prasad, (2) Sri v. Selvaraj, (3) Sri H. S. S. Murthy, (4) Sri n. C. Hemanth Kumar, (5) Sri K. G. Sathyamurthy, (6) Sri M. K. Uttappa, (7) sri C. N. Anand. The key witnesses in the enquiry are K. G. Sathyamurthy the person who gave a complaint to the Police and who is an executive (Asst. Workshop Superintendent) in the Respondent organisation. The Management has not examined Sri N. C. Hemanth Kumar who was taken by the police to the Police Station on the basis of the complaint given by Sri K. G. Sathyamurthy. They have also not produced the copy of the F. I. R. filed in respect of the alleged assault on K. G. Sathyamurthy, even though the petitioner called for the same. The non-examination of K. G. Sathyamurthy and N. C. Hemanth Kumar vitiates the entire proceeding as the incident on 16-7-1985 was due to the alleged arrest of N. C. Hemanth kumar. "and a specific ground is set out in paragraph-10 of the petition. It reads:-"10. The findings under Point-E are vitiated by the non-examination of Mr. Anand, Mr. Hemanth Kumar and Mr. Sathyamurthy k. G. in the enquiry of the petitioner. "and a specific ground is set out in paragraph-10 of the petition. It reads:-"10. The findings under Point-E are vitiated by the non-examination of Mr. Anand, Mr. Hemanth Kumar and Mr. Sathyamurthy k. G. in the enquiry of the petitioner. The minds of the workers were exercised by the fact that Sri Hemanth Kumar was taken to police Station, in the background, that, about 10 years back he was severely harassed by the Police, for no fault of him. The findings under Point-E is not based on any consideration of evidence adduced in the enquiry. It is also based on surmise. There is no discussion of any evidence in the conclusion arrived at while dealing with the Point-E. Further he refers to the evidence of Mr. Sathyamurthy K. G. adduced in the Enquiry of Sri G. Badarinath. At page-53, the Enquiry Officer refers to the evidence of Sri K. G. Sathyamurthy as stating that in his complaint to the Police he had named Mr. Hemanth Kumar as a person on whom he had doubt. Sri sathyamurthy K. G. is an Assistant workshop Superintendent of the Respondent Organisation and it is in respect of his complaint to the Police Mr. Hemanth kumar was taken to the Police Station. Thus it is clear that this sending of Hemanth kumar to the Police Station was not in the capacity as a witness but as a probable accused in the case. Subsequently he was let off does not alter the position. This fact itself disprove Mr. Anand's assertion that sri Hemanth Kumar was taken to the Police station as a witness. The entire discussion regarding Point-E is based on the evidence adduced in the Enquiry of Mr, G. Badarinath and is not based on the evidence adduced in the enquiry against the petitioner. The entire finding is vitiated which in effect vitiates the entire enquiry. "in support of the above ground, the petitioner invited out attention to the relevant portions of the Inquiry Report. They read:-"as per Exhibit M-4 the management decided to hold an enquiry since there was no explanation by the CSE. The explanation of CSE is as per Exhibit w-2. The CSE has denied the allegations against him on going through the charge sheet. Mr. G. Badarinath another employee was also charged with similar charges along with this CSE. Incidentially I conducted the enquiry of G. Badarinath also. The explanation of CSE is as per Exhibit w-2. The CSE has denied the allegations against him on going through the charge sheet. Mr. G. Badarinath another employee was also charged with similar charges along with this CSE. Incidentially I conducted the enquiry of G. Badarinath also. As such my findings are derived from both the proceedings. In support of the alleged incident as per the charge sheet Exhibit M-3 the witnesses as shown in Appendix-A were examined by the management and cross examined by the cse. The CSE in defence examined the witnesses as shown in Appcndix-B and also examined himself as a witness and contended that his explanation Exhibit W-2 should be read along with Exhibit S-12. After the closure of enquiry proceedings the management as well as CSE submitted their written arguments dated 24-7-1986 and 25-7-1986 respectively (Exhibit M- 11and exhibit W-13 ). As already stated above, the findings are based on the evidence led before me in both the enquiries. The written argument of CSE is similar in both the cases. "xxx xxx xxx"point-E 1. The contention of CSE was that Mr. Hemanth Kumar was sent to the police station by the mangement with an intention to harass him, and also that the management has got arrested Mr. Hemanth Kumar 10 years back where he had undergone the torture by the police. Whereas the answer of mr. Anand shows that Mr. Hemanth Kumar was only taken as a witness in the assault case of Mr. Sathyamurthy and when the police have asked management to send him, being a Government body they cannot refuse to send him. As such they had sent mr. Hemanth Kumar to the police station this fact has been elicited in the evidence of defence witnesses itself. Moreover Mr. Hemanth Kumar who deposed a"s the witness of management in the enquiry of Mr. Badarinath stated that the police released him and asked him to send Sri Govindaraj this CSE. The whole incident has been centered with the taking away of Mr. Hemanth Kumar by the police. The question arises as to the intention of the management. It is observe4 that Mr. Sathyamurthy who was assaulted, in his deposition as a management witness in the enquiry of Mr. Badarinath stated that when he was being assaulted Mr. Hemanth Kumar passed by the spot of assault seeing him. The evidence shows that though Mr. The question arises as to the intention of the management. It is observe4 that Mr. Sathyamurthy who was assaulted, in his deposition as a management witness in the enquiry of Mr. Badarinath stated that when he was being assaulted Mr. Hemanth Kumar passed by the spot of assault seeing him. The evidence shows that though Mr. Hemanth kumar saw Mr. Sathyamurthy being assaulted by some people did not go to his rescue or did not help Mr. Sathyamurthy to take him to hospital or did not even go and enquire him. As such it is seen that mr. Sathyamurthy in his complaint to the police had named Mr. Hemanth Kumar as a person on whom he had doubt. This shows the intention of police in taking Mr. Hemanth Kumar to police station to investigate the matter. I do not see any reason for the management for sending Mr. Hemanth Kumar to police station only with an intention to harass him. Nowhere the cse brought out that the management had any encmity against Mr. Hemanth Kumar which warranted to send him to police station. As such it cannot be construed that there was any motive behind sending Mr. Hemanth Kumar to Police Station or the management had an intention to harass him. The CSE failed to bring out and establish this counter he made against the management. "the learned Counsel submitted that from the above portions of the Inquiry Report, it is clear that the Inquiry Officer, inter alia, had relied on the statements of K. G. Sathyamurthy and N. C. Hemanth Kumar, though they were not among the witnesses, who were examined in the inquiry held against the petitioner. The learned Counsel submitted that on this short ground alone the inquiry proceedings and consequently the order of penalty imposed against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. ( 5 ) IN support of the above contention, the learned Counsel relied on the Judgment of the supreme Court in Associated Cement Companies ltd. v Their Workmen, 1963 (2) LU 396 at 402. ( 5 ) IN support of the above contention, the learned Counsel relied on the Judgment of the supreme Court in Associated Cement Companies ltd. v Their Workmen, 1963 (2) LU 396 at 402. The relevant portion of it reads:-"if one enquiry had been held against daulat Singh and Vishwa Nath, it would have been another matter; but if two separate enquiries were held against the two workmen, it would, we think, be very unfair to rely upon the evidence in the enquiry against Daulat Singh when the officers were dealing with the case of Vishwa Nath. The evidence given in Daulat Singh's enquiry was not recorded in Vishwa Nath's presence and Vishwa Nath had no opportunity to test the said evidence by cross-examination. Therefore, it is plain that the final conclusion of the enquiry officers is based on grounds which have introduced an element of unfairness in the whole enquiry. We arc, therefore, satisfied that the tribunal was right in holding that the report made by the enquiry officers against Vishwa Nath cannot be accepted as a report made after holding a proper enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice. That being our view, we must confirm the order passed by the tribunal in respect of Vishwa Nath. "the above decision fully supports the contention of the petitioner. ( 6 ) THE learned Council for the management, however, contended that on the facts of this case it was distinguishable from the Judgment of the supreme Court. Elaborating the submission, the learned Counsel stated as follows:- In the present case, in respect of the same incident two inquiries were instituted, one against the petitioner and another against one Badarinath. In the case of the petitioner, Badarinath was permitted to defend him as a friend; whereas in the case of badarinath, the petitioner was permitted to appear and defend him as a friend. Though it was true that seven witnesses, whose names arc set out in para-2 of the petition were examined in the inquiry against Badarinath and not in the inquiry against the petitioner, it was not as though the petitioner was unaware of the evidence given by the said persons, and, in fact, he had cross-examined them appearing for Badarinath. ( 7 ) WE find it difficult to agree. ( 7 ) WE find it difficult to agree. As pointed out by the Supreme Court, it would have been an entirely different matter if the authorities had chosen to hold a joint inquiry against both the petitioner and Badarinath, as the incident which gave rise to a departmental inquiry was one and the same. But the Management chose to hold two separate inquiries. Therefore, it is clear that the witnesses examined in one inquiry cannot be regarded as witnesses examined in another inquiry. Admittedly, Sathyamurthy and Hemanth kumar were examined as witnesses in the inquiry against Badarinalh and they were not examined as witnesses in the inquiry held against the petitioner. If the petitioner happened to have been engaged as a friend to assist in the inquiry of Badarinath and he cross-examined the witness in his capacity as a legal assistant to Badarinath, it docs not mean that the evidence recorded in the disciplinary inquiry against badarinath automatically becomes evidence in the inquiry held against the petitioner. Therefore, in our opinion, the Inquiry Officer should have recorded a finding against the petitioner only on consideration of the evidence recorded in the inquiry held against him. But from the proceedings of the inquiry, it is clear that the Inquiry Officer was influenced by the evidence recorded in the case of Badarinalh as he has expressly stated that his findings were based on the evidence led before him in both the inquiries. Therefore, in our opinion, there is no escape from the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Associated cement Companies Ltd. Case. Consequently, the findings recorded in the inquiry are liable to be set aside on the ground that it violated the rules of natural justice. ( 8 ) AS far as the second contention is concerned, in view of our finding on the first contention, we consider it unnecessary to go into the second contention, namely, that the charges themselves are untenable, as a lawful strike can never be construed as unlawful and further in the present case the finding recorded by the Inquiry officer that even though no rule or law was violated, still the strike was illegal was untenable. We do not express any opinion on the question as to whether the violation of other Standing orders, apart from S. O. 23 (2) can be regarded as charges independent from the charges levelled under S. O. 22, or as to whether the Management has made it appear that the petitioner is guilty of more than one misconduct by stating that the petitioner had committed misconducts under various Standing Orders, though the incident happened to be one and the same. ( 9 ) NOW the point for consideration is, whether after quashing the impugned order the management should have the liberty of holding a de novo inquiry. It is settled principle of law that when this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution quashes any inquiry proceedings or orders passed thereon on the ground that any rule regulating the disciplinary proceedings or a rule of natural justice had been violated, it is always competent for the management to hold ade novo Inquiry commencing from the stage at which the illegality was committed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the facts of this case, it may be seen that the allegations levelled against the petitioner did not involve any moral turpitude or docs not relate to any other serious type of misconduct of high-handed behaviour, but it was an emotional reaction to the taking of one of their workmen to the police station and therefore as the petitioner had suffered sufficiently, the holding of de novo inquiry from the stage at which the illegality was committed might not be justified. He submitted that the petitioner may be denied 50% of the wages withheld, as a result of the non-implementation of the impugned order and that itself would constitute sufficient penalty and the matter may be closed. In our opinion, the submission made by the learned counsel is fair, but the matter should be considered by the Management. ( 10 ) IN the result, we make the following order: (I) The Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 19-8-1987, (Annexure-D) imposing the penalty of reduction to the minimum of the pay scale of the petitioner, is set aside. (iii) The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including the payment of arrears of salary, re-fixation of pay etc. , flowing from the quashing of the impugned order. (ii) The impugned order dated 19-8-1987, (Annexure-D) imposing the penalty of reduction to the minimum of the pay scale of the petitioner, is set aside. (iii) The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including the payment of arrears of salary, re-fixation of pay etc. , flowing from the quashing of the impugned order. (iv) The petitioner shall, however, be not entitled to 50% of the arrears to which he becomes entitled to as a result of the quashing of the impugned order, in the event of the Management deciding not to hold de novo inquiry. (v) There will be no order as to costs. Writ Petition allowed. --- *** --- .