Honble MISRA, J.—The petitioner Sri, S.S. Darbari who is a member of the Indian Police Service (IPS) and is presently functioning as a Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench dated 27.3.97 by which the learned Members of the Tribunal have refused to quash and set aside the charge-sheet dated 17.6.94 issued to the petitioner by the State of Rajasthan through respondent No. 2, Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan under Rule 8 of the All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. The Tribunal refused to do so on the ground that the Tribunal can neither interfere with the charge-sheet at the stage of issuance of charge-sheet nor can given any direction to the respondents to hold DPC for consideration of his claim for promotion. Consequently, the application of the petitioner was rejected by the Tribunal. (2). The petitioner on his part has initially related the background under which the charge-sheet has been issued to him in order to predominantly emphasize that the charge-sheet was issued as a sequel of one round of litigation relating to his claim for promotion and his challenge to adverse ACRs which went upto the Supreme Court where the petitioner Shri Darbari succeeded and it was directed to the respondents not to take into consideration the adverse ACRs for the period of 1992-93. Thus the petitioners one of the plank while challenging the charge-sheet is that the impugned charge-sheet dated 17.6.94 was slapped on the petitioner as a consequence of the previous litigation which is not only, malicious and flimsy but is also extremely vague and unsustainable which do not call for any enquiry. (3). In order to test the strength and sustainability of the petitioners plea, it is appropriate that the nature of the charges be looked into which are as follows : "(i) Proceeded to sick leave from 3.11.92 to 7.11.92 without getting it sanctioned, assumed duties on 9.11.92 without sick and fitness certificates produced fitness certificate dated 13.11.92, whereas found, to assume duties an 8.11.92 and violated Rule 23 of All India Service Rules. (ii) For unauthorised absence. Though proceeded on leave after obtaining sanction for casual leave from 3.2.93 to 14.2.93; therefore thereafter sent telegram on 16.2.93 for medical leave without mentioning the period of leave, nor gave address. (ii) For unauthorised absence. Though proceeded on leave after obtaining sanction for casual leave from 3.2.93 to 14.2.93; therefore thereafter sent telegram on 16.2.93 for medical leave without mentioning the period of leave, nor gave address. Letter sent to him at recorded address but he remained absent till 28.4.93 and assumed duties on 29.4.93. Applied for conversion of earlier casual leave from 3.2.93 to 4.3.93 into commuted leave with optional holidays and official holidays which was not sanctioned and entire period from 3.2.93 to 28.4.93 deemed to be unauthorised period. (iii) Used unparliamentary language against his Office Assistant. (iv) Obtained copies of note-sheet from official files without authority (v) Non-performance of work entrusted to him and disobedience of the workers of the Senior Officers. (vi) Was found absent on specified dates when called by the Addl. Director General of Police." (4). The facts of the case in so far as it is relevant for considering the question involved herein is that on 17.6.94 a charge-sheet for major penalty was issued to the petitioner under Rule 8 of the All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1961 wherein the charges noted hereinbefore were levelled against the petitioner. The charge-sheet was initiated at the instance of respondents No. 3 and 4 by conducting a concocted preliminary enquiry only on one charge out of several charges and further pursuing it by several letters with malafide intention without conducting a preliminary enquiry or any of the other charges inspite of Government of Rajasthans Instructions issued by Circular dated 22.8.56 which makes it incumbent to hold a preliminary enquiry in case of serious delinquency. (5). The petitioners first and foremost plea is that the allegations even a it stands reveal no misconduct on the part of the petitioner much less serious as the petitioner proceeded on leave by duly informing the authorities and the requirement of information regarding leave on the prescribed format is not mandatory since the intention of the rule is that there should be a medical certificate from the competent Doctor which had been duly submitted. The respondent-State however could have converted the leave availed into another type of leave admissible to the petitioner and in any case, not submitting the prescribed medical certificate is not a misconduct. The respondent-State however could have converted the leave availed into another type of leave admissible to the petitioner and in any case, not submitting the prescribed medical certificate is not a misconduct. However the petitioner had submitted the certificate on 13.11.92 and not submitting the certificate at the time of assuming duties cannot be held to be a misconduct as defined under Rule 3 of the All India Service (Conduct) Rules, 1963. (6). The petitioner has further explained that there is no necessity of prior sanction of leave if a person proceeds on medical leave for the reason that medical inability may occur at any time and the rule does not provide for approval or prior sanction. In this context it has been narrated that the petitioner had been examined by Dr. Habeeb on 3.11.92 and 7.11.92 at the residence of the petitioner and after the Doctor expressed his opinion that the petitioner is fit to resume duty, he did so on 9.11.92 since 8.11.92 was a Sunday. The petitioner further resumed duties submitting medical fitness certificate issued by Dr. Habeeb-A Sr. Government Doctor. However, it was insisted that the certificate in the proforma prescribed in the Rajasthan Service Rules be submitted and hence the petitioner obtained a copy of the prescribed proforma from the Police Branch of Head quarters who got it certified by Dr. Habeeb who eventually issued a certificate of fitness on 13.11.92 inspite of this, a charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner alleging that he is guilty of misconduct since he did not produce the fitness certificate in the prescribed format. (7). In regard to the third charge, regarding use of unparliamentary language in letter dated 11.6.93, the petitioner has produced the letter itself in order to establish that the contents of the letter itself are self-explanatory which do not disclose any misconduct calling for an enquiry. The contents of letter (marked as Annex-12 to this writ petition) may be perused in this context which reads as follows : "No. PHQ/93/39-40 Dated 11.6.93 To, The Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Sub : Sanction of commuted Leave for the month of Feb. to April, 1993 and payment of the same and also duty pay for the month of May, 1993. Ref. : Your No. 5551-54 dt. 8.6.93, requiring me to attend the course Management of Training w.e.f. 12.7.92 to 17.7.93 at S.V.P. Hyderabad. Sub : Sanction of commuted Leave for the month of Feb. to April, 1993 and payment of the same and also duty pay for the month of May, 1993. Ref. : Your No. 5551-54 dt. 8.6.93, requiring me to attend the course Management of Training w.e.f. 12.7.92 to 17.7.93 at S.V.P. Hyderabad. Sir, I am required to attend the above mentioned course at Hyderabad, as communicated to me vide copy of your letter referred to above. In this connection, I would like to mention that I have not been paid my salary for the last four months. Salary of Feb. to April, 1993 has been held up for want of sanction of I.G. (Adm.) who has raised a number of trivial and baseless objections (No. V 15(27) Police-Adm.-A/92/803 dated 6.5.93 enclosed) even though the medical certificates and fitness certificate are from very senior doctors of reputed Govt. Hospitals in Delhi, and are on the format prescribed by the Central Govt. As such, the objections are not worthy of reply. And my duty pay for the month of May, 93 has also not been paid. This is the treatment being meted out to the senior-most DIG in the State under your regime, and the same amounts to wilful harassment. It is regrettable that things have come to such a pass only in my case. I would, therefore, request that salary of the above period may please be made payable to me at the earliest in order to avoid financial hardship and to meet urgent requirements of the family, and also to enable me to get necessary AIR reservations made in time to enable me to attend the said course. I would also request sanction of 5 days C.L. w.e.f. 5.7.93 to 9.7.93 with permission to avail G.H. failing on 4th, 10th and 1 l.07.93 to enable me to attend to some personal work on way. Yours faithfully, sd/- (S.S. Darbari) Dy. Inspr. Genl. of Police, (Adm.) Rajasthan, Jaipur, Copy submitted to the Principal Secretary, Home, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur for favour of information. sd/- Dy. Inspr. Genl. of Police, (Adm.) Rajasthan, Jaipur (8). The petitioner, however, was quite surprised when the charge of using unparliamentary language in the aforesaid letter was alleged and he tried to enquire from the Government vide his letter dated 31.8.94 for clarification as to which portion pertains to unparliamentary language but the same was not responded. sd/- Dy. Inspr. Genl. of Police, (Adm.) Rajasthan, Jaipur (8). The petitioner, however, was quite surprised when the charge of using unparliamentary language in the aforesaid letter was alleged and he tried to enquire from the Government vide his letter dated 31.8.94 for clarification as to which portion pertains to unparliamentary language but the same was not responded. A copy of the letter dated 31.8.94 has also been submitted alongwith the writ petition marked as Annex. 13. The petitioner has further given a detailed account in order to prove his plea of malafide against several police officers which we do not consider necessary to elaborate as we deem it sufficient to state that he has alleged malafides for levelling such a charge against the petitioner which according to him is not sustainable since an opinion by any reasonable person can be formed by going through the letter itself. He has rather alleged that on account of serious friction between him and some police officers, discourteous letter were issued to him frequently. It has, therefore, been urged that the respondents instead of proceeding in a rational manner, chose to issue a charge-sheet for major penalty to the petitioner and that too after a period of one year without conducting preliminary enquiry on any of the charges except, one for which there is no explanation. The petitioner has also pressed his view point and contended that the respondent-State could have issued memo or even charge-sheet even earlier but it waited and issued charge-sheet on the day when all the senior officers of the Police Department assembled at Jaipur for a meeting and a news was flashed regarding issuance of charge-sheet against him even before the charge-sheet was despatched by the Department of Personnel to the petitioner. The petitioner has sought to highlight this fact in order to substantiate that the whole exercise has been done with a malafide intention by the respondents alleging use of unparliamentary language by him in his letter dt. 11.6.93 which on the face of it is utterly without any sense. However, no preliminary enquiry was conducted to verify such allegations nor the letter of the petitioner was responded in the enquiry as to which portion of the letter can be alleged to have used unparliamentary language. (9). 11.6.93 which on the face of it is utterly without any sense. However, no preliminary enquiry was conducted to verify such allegations nor the letter of the petitioner was responded in the enquiry as to which portion of the letter can be alleged to have used unparliamentary language. (9). In so far as the charge regarding procurement of copy of letters and note-sheets of File No. 27 relating to the petitioner is concerned, it has been submitted that the aforesaid file related to his leave and office accommodation and there was absolutely nothing secret in the note-sheet and file nor it was a confidential file. The petitioner, however, had also submitted and requested to supply the photostat copy of the note-sheets of the leave applications and the concerned clerk on the basis of requisition, himself requested the petitioner that a photostat copy of the note-sheets will be issued to him from the Branch and the petitioner who is a high-ranking officer, was not required to obtain sanction from any authority for this purpose. If at all it was necessary, it was for the clerk concerned to obtain permission for this purpose. However, it has been submitted that obtaining copy of ones own application and note-sheet for tallying it with the actual leave availed by the petitioner cannot be treated as a misconduct. The petitioner has further pointed out that the alleged incident of taking note-sheets related to the month of June, 1993 but the respondents took more than one year six months in treating it as a charge and the delay itself indicates the malafide intention of the respondents in this regard to somehow find fault with the petitioners conduct. (10). The charge No. 5 is also challenged as having no basis in as much as the petitioner was directed to process the inspection-note and contingency plan and the principal work which is assigned to the DIG Police Branch was not assigned to the petitioner and not even a proper room was allotted to him from where an officer of a DIG rank could function. It is further stated that the normal routine of a DIG is to supervise the law and order and administration but no work in this regard had been allotted to him nor any staff had been provided to him and hence allegation of non-functioning hardly require any enquiry. It is further stated that the normal routine of a DIG is to supervise the law and order and administration but no work in this regard had been allotted to him nor any staff had been provided to him and hence allegation of non-functioning hardly require any enquiry. In this regard it has been contended that the alleged act does not fall in any of the specified misconducts provided in the Conduct Rules, 1968 since All India Service (Conduct Rules) merely states that every member of the Service shall at all times maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and shall do nothing unbecoming of the member of the Service. The petitioner performed his duties sincerely under the direction of superiors and his integrity certificate has never been with held during his entire carrier and even when the adverse ACRs for 1992-93 was written with malafide intention just a day prior to the meeting of the Screening Committee held on 17.6.93, the charge-sheet was issued in order to supersede the petitioner by somehow inventing charge in order to hold him guilty of misconduct. Hence no enquiry under the disciplinary appeal rules is fit to be conducted on the basis of allegations levelled in the charge-sheet. (11). In regard to the 6th and the final charge, the submission of the petitioner is that he could not have expected to carry out the work without the sanctioned staff and also proper arrangement of office for discharging the duties of the level of an officer of a DIG Rank. In fact the petitioner has alleged that the normal functions of the DIG is to supervise the law and order situation but instead of assigning this regular work which normally is entrusted to a DIG (Adm.) the petitioner was asked to process the inspection report and look after the work of contingency without providing any staff to the petitioner. The petitioner infact although was a DIG even at that point of time a room was allotted to him only on 18.2.92. The petitioner has further elaborate regarding the kind of room that he was entitled which was denied to him and it is his explanation that since no room was allotted to the petitioner, he could not have been expected to remain present in the room. The petitioner has further elaborate regarding the kind of room that he was entitled which was denied to him and it is his explanation that since no room was allotted to the petitioner, he could not have been expected to remain present in the room. Moreover the room was under repair which was allotted to him and the petitioner used to sit in the room of Inspector General (Training) Shri S.P. Singh. This allegation in the charge-sheet was also included as an afterthought with clear malafide intention and with a motive to harass the petitioner in order to supersede his claim for promotion. The charge-sheet according to the petitioner has been deliberately framed so that a departmental enquiry be initiated for major penalties which normally lingers on for several years. The petitioner is aggrieved that in his long 26 years of service this was first time when on such petty charges, his explanation had been called which suffers from total non-application of mind. (12). Shri Asopa, learned counsel for the petitioner has thus dealt with the charges at length and although has advanced detailed arguments on it, the some and substance of the same is that the charges are totally vague and malicious based on no evidence which are not worth the enquiry and should be quashed at the threshold with which the Tribunal has wrongly refused to interfere. According to the learned counsel, the charge-sheet is open to judicial review on the ground of vagueness of charges or charges based on no evidence and in support of his submission he has relied upon a long list of decisions. To mention a few relevant ones are -R.C. Sood vs. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan & Ors. (1), R.C. Sood vs. High Court of Rajasthan (2), M. Krishna Swami vs. Union of India (3) (Para 17), Sukhraj Singh vs. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan (4). (13). The then Advocate General Shri B.P. Agrawal appearing on behalf of respondents, however on his part has supported the judgment of the Administrative Tribunal and has submitted that the learned Members of the Tribunal are quite justified in refusing to interfere with the enquiry which commenced after issuance of charge-sheet to the petitioner which was served upon him. (13). The then Advocate General Shri B.P. Agrawal appearing on behalf of respondents, however on his part has supported the judgment of the Administrative Tribunal and has submitted that the learned Members of the Tribunal are quite justified in refusing to interfere with the enquiry which commenced after issuance of charge-sheet to the petitioner which was served upon him. The learned Members of the Tribunal as also learned Advocate General are of the opinion that a court of law should not interfere and enter into an enquiry of the charges as that is the job of the enquiring authority at the stage of enquiry. Shri Agrawal also has cited several authorities in support of his submission viz. Union of India & Anr. vs. Ashok Kakkau (5), Union of India & Ors. vs. Upendra Singh (6), Dy. Inspector General of Police vs. K.S. Swami-nathan (7). (14). It is undoubtedly true that when a charge-sheet is issued to an officer which requires evidence in order to ascertain the truth or correctness of the charges alleged in the charge-sheet, any court including the Tribunal would refrain from interfering with the enquiry based on the charges specified in the charge-sheet and a catena of decisions of the Apex Court have also taken this view, but it is also equally true that a latitude has been left in another large group of cases where law courts have interfered with the charges on the ground of vagueness and lack of evidence against charges levelled and it would be relevant and worthwhile to refer to the case of R.C. Sood vs. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan (supra) and Transport Commissioner, Madras vs. A. Radha Krishnamurthy (8) and the case of Sukhraj Singh vs. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan (supra). (15). In the matter of R.C. Sood vs. High Court of Rajasthan (supra) unfair exercise of powers of disciplinary action which is expected to be discharged fairly and objectively has been deprecated and the enquiry against a judicial officer had been quashed when it was found that there was a complete lack of bonafides on the part of the authority while initiating a disciplinary proceeding. (16). (16). In the matter of Transport Commissioner, Madras vs. A. Radha Krishnamurthy (supra), also although the learned Judges of the Supreme Court as a matter of principle laid down that correctness of the charges is not subject to judicial review prior to conclusion of departmental enquiry, yet it upheld the quashing of the charges on the ground of vagueness wherein the official concerned had inter-alia caused pecuniary loss to the State Government by acts of misappropriation and was charged liable for recovering the amount which caused loss to the State Exchequer. The learned Judges of the Supreme Court in this matter had accepted the contention of the delinquent employee to the effect that expect the memo of charges, no other opportunity of refuting the charges or supporting particulars were supplied and since it had not been refuted, the assertion made by the delinquent was accepted even by the Supreme Court and it was held that the charges being general in nature including the fact that the delinquent was about to retire, the charges were quashed. (17). In yet another Division Bench judgment of the Rajasthan High Court delivered in the matter of Sukhraj Singh vs. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan (supra) the learned Judges of the Division Bench had been pleased to hold that where the charges are found to be groundless or void ab-initio or on baseless grounds or there is no iota of evidence to frame such charges or there is non-application of mind of the disciplinary authority to the admitted facts, this Court can certainly pass suitable orders in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. (18). In the matter of Union of India vs. Upendra Singh (supra) although has been relied upon by the respondents in support of their plea, yet the learned Judges in this matter too have accepted the position that although the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness or truth of the charges and cannot take over the functions of the disciplinary authority, yet scope has been left for the Tribunal or Court in matters where no misconduct or other irregularity alleged can be said to have been made out for the charges framed and are contrary to any law. (19). (19). The authorities and the counter authorities in a situation of this kind, ultimately do not leave the law courts totally unarmed so as to remain a helpless spectator from wriggling out an employee of an impasse of a charge-sheet howsoever flimsy and frivolous the charge-sheet may appear to be even on a first glance. We have, therefore, purposely quoted the charges levelled against the petitioner in detail as also the explanation put forward by the petitioner in this regard in order to test the bonafides of the respondents action. It may however, not be misunderstood that this Court has sought to embark upon an enquiry in this regard for it is neither the function of this Court to do so nor it is legally permissible, but if on perusal of the charges mentioned in the charge-sheet, no prima facie case of serious delinquency calling for an enquiry for major penalty is made out which can be gathered by looking into the vagueness and pettiness of the charges, the silence and non-interference of the court would be highly intriguing causing serious prejudice to an employee putting him in peril. What is intended to be emphasised is that the courts by virtue of their experience while dealing services cases and by looking into the nature of the charges do develop in its wisdom a sense of discretion where prima facie an opinion by looking into the charges can surely be formed an opinion as whether the charges are so grave where no conclusion can be drawn by holding a preliminary enquiry or a simple explanation, without a proper enquiry by asking the contesting parties to lead evidence and only after full length enquiry of the same, any conclusion can be deduced. The holding of enquiry, therefore, cannot be treated as a mechanical follow up once charge-sheet has been issued even though the charges prima facie appear to be of such a nature which can be dealt with even in a preliminary enquiry. Normally a charge-sheet is expected to be issued for such situations where the matter cannot be disposed of without holding a regular enquiry and requires extensive evidence but there may be other category of charges which can be dealt with even in a preliminary enquiry. Normally a charge-sheet is expected to be issued for such situations where the matter cannot be disposed of without holding a regular enquiry and requires extensive evidence but there may be other category of charges which can be dealt with even in a preliminary enquiry. It is for this very purpose that the Government of Rajasthan has rightly introduced the provisions of holding of preliminary enquiry before a departmental enquiry for major penalty is initiated. The petitioner has specifically come out with a case that no preliminary enquiry was held in regard to the charges except one which has not been refuted and more charges were added after a preliminary enquiry was already held in regard to one of the charges. What prompted the respondent to add further charges to the charge-sheet after a preliminary enquiry was concluded in regard to one of the charges is beyond the comprehension of this Court. It is further difficult to appreciate as to why the charges in regard to the use of unparliamentary language, non-functioning etc. were included in the charge-sheet after along lapse of one and half year of the alleged allegation for it cannot be ruled out that if an authority is bent upon stretching a charge, it may pick holes in every action of an employee which can be disposed of by a simple explanation or a preliminary enquiry and a final opinion can at once be formed by the authority whether it is essential to enter into further enquiry for major penalty or merely preliminary enquiry would be sufficient. (20). Therefore, the Tribunal in our considered opinion ought not to have entered into a mechanical process of applying the decisions of the Apex Court in the facts and situation of the present case and in the process completely missing as to why a departmental enquiry should have been allowed to continue without holding a preliminary enquiry in regard to the charges alleged. The Tribunal seems to have lost sight of the fact that the Apex Court while discouraging the practice of the Tribunal to hold an enquiry into the charges at the stage after issuance of charge-sheet has also held that it can be interfered with if the charges are vague, perverse and suffers from total non-application of mind and thus has itself interfered in cases where the charges appear to be vague. The case of Sukhraj Singh vs. High Court of Rajasthan (supra), R.C. Sood vs. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan (supra), Transport Commissioner, Madras vs. A. Radha Krishnamurthy (supra) are the cases in point which reinforces this position. (21). The vagueness while on the one hand may mean a situation where it would be difficult for any court to form an opinion whether an employee is guilty of the charges or not it may also reflect a situation whether an enquiry for major penalty is at all required and this in our opinion can be gathered by perusing the charge-sheet which the Tribunal has failed to do in the case at hand. To illustrate this, in the instant case the respondents in fact failed to explain inspite of petitioners query as to which part of petitioners letter can be alleged to have used unparliamentary language which did not meet with any response. However the perusal of the letter by the Tribunal itself could have been sufficient to reach to a conclusion in this regard for it is difficult to infer what further evidence could be led on it so as to justify an enquiry and call for evidence when the charge-sheet has failed to disclose which portion of the letter was offensive. The charge on this count thus is absolutely vague on which possibly no evidence could be led. (22). The vagueness can further be illustrated by referring to the first charge regarding absence from duty without medical certificate as in our opinion this was another charge on which no evidence possibly could be led as the charge ultimately was to the effect that although the petitioner produced medical certificate to explain his absence, the same was not given out in the required format. A final opinion on this charge could have been formed suo-moto and no further enquiry regarding evidence can be conceived of on this charge. Moreover insistence on this rule is to fill in the required formality but it cannot be expected to be filled up in the required form even before the employee is fit enough to resume his duties. To expect an employee on a medical leave to fill the format before proceeding on medical leave is devoid of logic and common sense and hence to issue a charge-sheet for holding enquiry in order to impose major penalty even prima facie is without any substance. To expect an employee on a medical leave to fill the format before proceeding on medical leave is devoid of logic and common sense and hence to issue a charge-sheet for holding enquiry in order to impose major penalty even prima facie is without any substance. This charge thus lacks bonafide of the respondents in our view. The tribunal in our opinion was certainly expected to use its sense of discretion while deciding a case of this nature by perusing the charges while forming an opinion as to whether the case fell into a category where an enquiry for major penalty was required and that no opinion could be formed without a detailed enquiry in this regard. As already stated such a wisdom is certainly expected of law courts as administration of justice is not a mechanical process and reliance on pronouncements and citations is not a question of mathematics and has to be applied on particular facts and circumstances of a case. (23). We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the charge-sheet which has been issued to the petitioner initiating a disciplinary proceeding for major penalty are extremely vague and lack bonafide on the part of the respondents. The issuance of charge-sheet thus suffers from total non-application of mind which do not justify a departmental enquiry for imposing major penalty since no further evidence could possibly have been led on the charges alleged. Besides this, we have also taken serious note of the fact that the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner without holding any preliminary enquiry on the same including all the charges although prima facie the charges do not appear to be of grave nature. As already stated, this is very obvious on perusal of the charge-sheet itself and looking into the nature of the charges levelled against the petitions in this case, it is difficult to appreciate why the respondents have straight-way sought to initiate an enquiry for the major penalty without holding any preliminary enquiry in this regard. (24). We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner initiating departmental enquiry for imposing major penalty is fit to be quashed. Accordingly the charge-sheet and the disciplinary proceeding are quashed and the impugned order of the Tribunal also stands set aside. The writ petition thus is allowed but without any order as to costs.