JUDGMENT P. C. NAIK, J. — The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the award dated 16.12.1993 (Annexure-6) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I.C.Case No. 36 of 1990 upholding the departmental enquiry held against the petitioner and affirming the punishment of reduction of basic pay from Rs. 470/- per month to Rs. 358/- per month to be legal and justified. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner was a driver in the employment of opposite party No. 2. On 9.7.1985 a charge-sheet was served on him containing the following charges : “(1) Negligence in duty by not performing trip under Sub-clause No. 11 of Clause 20. (2) Deliberately giving false information regarding defect of crown tail with a view to create dislocation of Corporation work under Sub-clause 33 of Clause 20. (3) Furnishing false information regarding seizure of your Driv¬ing Licence by P. 3 Nuapada under Sub-clause No. 31 of Clause 20.” The petitioner denied the allegations. However, an inquiry was conducted by the Managing Director (opp. party No. 2) who is the disciplinary authority. The petitioner was held guilty as per order vide Annexure-2 and ultimately by order dated 30.7.1986, punishment was imposed reducing his pay to Rs. 358/- per month in the time scale of pay attached to the post. A dispute was raised which was ultimately referred to the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar who by the impugned order upheld the inquiry and punishment im¬posed on the petitioner. Hence this writ petition. 3. The contention of the writ petitioner is that the im¬pugned order is vitiated because the disciplinary authority himself has conducted the inquiry as an Enquiring Officer. He also personally presented the case on behalf of the management in the inquiry proceeding and examined and cross-examined the wit¬nesses who were examined in presence of the other witnesses and that because of the irregularities, the inquiry was vitiated. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by opp. party No. 2 opposing the writ petition. The case of opp. party No. 2 is that the reports submitted by the petitioner were false as during the routine check up of the vehicle, no defect was detected and, as such, the proceedings were rightly initiated against the peti¬tioner. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by opp. party No. 2 opposing the writ petition. The case of opp. party No. 2 is that the reports submitted by the petitioner were false as during the routine check up of the vehicle, no defect was detected and, as such, the proceedings were rightly initiated against the peti¬tioner. It is further averred that the inquiry was properly conducted by the disciplinary authority in terms of the certified standing order and that in the inquiry, due opportunity was granted to the petitioner to put forward his case. The averment that the petitioner was not per¬mitted to cross-examine the witnesses, has also been denied. Accordingly, it has been submitted that principle of natural justice was strictly adhered to and on a finding that the peti¬tioner was guilty of charge Nos. 2 and 3 punishment was imposed which does not call for any interference in this proceeding. 5. Evidence was adduced before the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar which, on a consideration of the facts and circumstances, upheld the action taken by the management. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to place any material before us in support of his contention that a person who is the disciplinary authority for imposing punishment cannot hold the departmental inquiry and then impose punishment. On the contrary, this can be done under the certified standing order. Therefore, the contention that being the disciplinary authority, the Managing Director could hold the departmental inquiry, needs to be repelled. There is also nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner was not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses or to participate in the inquiry, for we do not find anything on record to indicate that he had ever objected to the procedure being adopted at the inquiry. These contentions, therefore, need to be repelled. However, what remains to be seen is whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the inquiry conducted by opp. party No. 2 was proper. 7. Before discussing the report of the Inquiring Officer, it may be pointed out that an inquiry should be held by such person who is not likely to import his personal knowledge into the proceedings which they are holding as an Enquiring Officer. party No. 2 was proper. 7. Before discussing the report of the Inquiring Officer, it may be pointed out that an inquiry should be held by such person who is not likely to import his personal knowledge into the proceedings which they are holding as an Enquiring Officer. Because where inquiry is held by a person who himself witnessed the al¬leged incident or imports his personal knowledge into the pro¬ceeding, injustice is likely to result. It is in this light that the validity or otherwise of the inquiry report may be considered for which purpose it will be in the interest of justice to quote a part of the inquiry report which reads thus : “....... There is no reason why I should disbelieve the statements of these two responsible officers, simply because the delinquent now says that he did not intimate anything to the Commercial Manager and the Stores Purchase Officer about seizure of his Driving Licence and payment of Rs. 30/- to the police. The evidence of the cleaner Shri Baidhar Sahoo as recorded in his statement, corroborates the statement of the delinquent. This evidence cannot be relied upon since the Commercial Manager had come down to my room shortly after the Driver Shri Mishra report¬ed to him and told him about the payment of Rs. 30/- to the police and seizure of his Driving Licence. This information of the delinquent Shri Mishra to the Commercial Manager cannot therefore be considered as after thought of the Commercial Manag¬er. That the Commercial Manager told me the facts purported to have been given to him by the delinquent Shri Mishra shortly after reporting by the Driver is also proved by the statement of defence witness Shri G.C.Kar, Senior Assistant of OSRTC who was present in my chamber when the Commercial Manager case and reported the facts to me .......” (Emphasis supplied) Thus, it is seen that the testimony of two officers D.B.Kanungo, Commercial Manager and D.P.Mishra, Stores Purchase Officer, was accepted not because on the facts and in the circumstances it was considered credible but because in the opinion of the Enquiring Officer, these witnesses had stated certain facts to the Managing Director (who later was the Enquiring Officer) shortly after the incident. Thus, because of the intimation given by the officers to the Enquiring Officer, the statement of workman’s witnesses and the delinquent was discarded. Thus, because of the intimation given by the officers to the Enquiring Officer, the statement of workman’s witnesses and the delinquent was discarded. So it is obvious that the Enquiring Officer, in the case at hand, did not weigh the evi¬dence as it should have been done - one against the other, but imported his personal knowledge into the proceedings and thereby accepted the evidence of the management and rejected that of the workman. Thus, in a manner of speaking, the Enquiring Officer considered himself to be a witness corroborating the evidence of the management and its witnesses. In our view, since the Enquir¬ing Officer has imported his personal knowledge into the proceed¬ings for corroborating the case of the management and the state¬ment of its witnesses, it has prejudiced the petitioner. Accord¬ingly, we are inclined to hold that the inquiry is vitiated and we do so. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.12.1993 (Annexure-6) and consequently, order dated 10.7.1986 (Annexure-4) imposing penalty are quashed. Consequences are to follow. There shall be no order as to costs. P. K. MOHANTY, J. I agree. Petition allowed