( 1 ) PETITIONER was a Commander in the Indian Navy. On certain charges, enquiry was conducted against him. In all there were four charges pertaining to causing accidents. The Enquiry Officer submitted report holding that the petitioner was not responsible for the first charge. The other three charges were held to have been proved. Thereafter, penalty of reduction of pay by 5 stages was imposed on the petitioner for a period of one year with cumulative effect under the impugned order at Annexure-H. The petitioner filed appeal against the said order. The Appellate authority reduced the penalty to reduction of pay by one stage for one year without cumulative effect by the impugned order at Annexure-L. The petitioner is seeking to quash both the orders in this writ petition. ( 2 ) STATEMENT of objections is filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 justifying the impugned orders. ( 3 ) IT is not necessary to refer to the various contentions urged by the learned Counsel on both sides. It is seen from the enquiry proceedings that evidence of the witnesses have been recorded merely putting questions. In the first place, oath is not administered to the witnesses. In the second place, it is not clear as to who put the questions to the witnesses. The evidence recorded is in the form of statements of third parties. In the third place, there is no cross-examination. The evidence of M. Balakrishna Nair recorded discloses that the question put to the witness is not in the form of question at all. It is in the form of a statement running to a paragraph. Thus, a procedure unknown to the conduct of departmental enquiries is followed by the Enquiry Officer. ( 4 ) WHEN the charges are denied, conduct of enquiry is not an empty formality. Certain procedures recognised by law have to be followed. The procedures have been prescribed to see that no prejudice would be caused to the delinquent and the enquiry is required to be conducted in compliance of the principles of natural justice. If there is any deviation or non-compliance of the prescribed norms, the enquiry would be vitiated and injustice will be caused to the delinquent. That is what precisely happened in the instant case. The entire enquiry proceedings are vitiated by the unknown procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer. If there is any deviation or non-compliance of the prescribed norms, the enquiry would be vitiated and injustice will be caused to the delinquent. That is what precisely happened in the instant case. The entire enquiry proceedings are vitiated by the unknown procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer. It follows that the findings recorded based on such vitiated enquiry cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed. ( 5 ) THE order of the Disciplinary Authority has been modified by the Appellate Authority. However, it was based on the report of defective enquiry. Both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have not considered whether the enquiry has been conducted in accordance with law or not. Therefore, the orders of both the authorities are liable to be quashed. ( 6 ) BEFORE concluding, I must observe that the respondents should have taken into consideration the gallantry services of the petitioner and the Vir Chakra, Nav Sena Medals and Certificate of service as Master of Foreign-Going Ship issued to him, before imposing any penalty. The valuable services rendered by the petitioner during his tenure have been totally ignored by the authorities. It is most unfortunate that the Vir Chakra awardee has been penalised at the fag end of his service. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders at annexures-H and L are quashed. ( 8 ) IT is stated that the petitioner has retired from service during the pendency of this writ petition. Therefore, question of remanding the matter for fresh consideration do not arise.