JUDGMENT 1. - All these three writ petitions are disposed of by this common order as common question of law is involved in these petitions. 2. Had Shenker was the Head Prahari and the other petitioners Shrawan Singh and Surendra Singh were Prahari. For escaping from jail by the accused, these people were charge-sheeted on the ground that they had shown utter negligence in discharge of their duty. Initially, the Director & Inspector General of Jail initiated an enquiry against them. In that enquiry, no charges were against them. Therefore, proved second enquiry was initiated by appointing a new Enquiry Officer. Likewise, they go on changing Enquiry Officers and ultimately, at last, Enquiry Officer, V.K. Mathur, Supreitendent (Jail), Kota concluded the enquiry and submitted the report against the petitioners. On the basis of the same, all the petitioners were initially removed from service. In appeal filed by the departmental authorities, all the appeals were partly allowed to the extent of maximum punishment of removal from service was reduced to the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioners have filed the aforesaid petitions. 3. A specific averment was made in para 17 of the writ petition by the petitioner that in the earlier enquiry, the report was in favour of the petitioners, but the Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the same, therefore, ordered to initiate a fresh enquiry on the ground that all the facts were not brought on record at the time of first enquiry. In the subsequent enquiry, several Enquiry Officers were changed and, ultimately, Shri V.K. Mathur, Superintendent (Jail) found the petitioners guilty in the fourth enquiry. These averments are specifically admitted by the respondents in para 17 of the reply affidavit. Once they admit that, in the first enquiry, the petitioners were exonerated by the Enquiry Officer, the second enquiry cannot be initiated against them for the charge on the ground that some facts were not brought on record at the time of first enquiry. It was the duty of the Department to produce all the relevant facts and documents in the first enquiry. If there was some lacuna because of which the petitioners were exonerated or not found guilty, then the Disciplinary Authority cannot be allowed to fill up that lacuna by initiating second enquiry. If this is permitted, then there is no end. It was the duty of the Department to produce all the relevant facts and documents in the first enquiry. If there was some lacuna because of which the petitioners were exonerated or not found guilty, then the Disciplinary Authority cannot be allowed to fill up that lacuna by initiating second enquiry. If this is permitted, then there is no end. Suppose, if in the second enquiry also the petitioners are exonerated then, is it permissible to hold third enquiry? Obviously, "NO". When these facts are specifically admitted by the respondents in the reply, there is no alternative for this court but to allow these writ petitions and set-aside the order of penalty of removal from service passed by the Disciplinary Authority, which was reduced to a lesser punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. 4. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority in appeal imposing penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect are hereby quashed and set-aside.Writ Petitions Allowed. *******