BHANWAR SINGH, J. ( 1 ) SRI Mahesh Chandra Agrawal, who was posted as Junior Engineer in Irrigation Department, gonda, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders of his removal from service dated 27. 2. 1996 and for another writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to continue to work and discharge his duty. However, he prayed for modification of the second prayer and claimed retiral benefits following his having attained the age of superannuation. ( 2 ) THE petitioner alleged that in the year 1990, he was assigned the raising and levelling works of rajghat Bandh for which he submitted his estimates for allotment of funds. He prepared an estimate amounting to Rs. 3. 50 lacs and submitted to the higher authorities. The Department of zila Gramya Vikas Adhikaran. Gonda allotted a sum of Rs. 3. 74 lacs and a cheque dated 15. 10. 1990 for the said amount was remitted to opposite party No. 3 Sri Ram Singh, the then executive Engineer. The said Executive Engineer was authorised to draw and disburse the said amount in accordance with the Financial Rules. In the meantime, the opposite party No. 4. namely, Sri Girdhar Gopal, Assistant Engineer with an intention of defrauding and cheating raised another demand for a sum of Rs. 6. 60 lacs and very cunningly mentioned therein that a sum of Rs. 3. 50 lacs had been incurred towards the payment on maintenance of Rajghat Bandh although the work had yet to be started. The opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 being in connivance with each other had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 3. 50 lacs for payment of bills pertaining to maintenance of the aforesaid Bandh. The petitioner did not get any work executed in respect of the raising and levelling of the Rajghat Bandh and soon thereafter, he was also relieved of his charge. However, a few years later in April, 1992, the opposite party No. 6 the Executive engineer who had taken over in place of opposite party No. 3 in the Irrigation Department, gonda, informed the petitioner that a sum of Rs. 2. 30 lacs was lying in balance as miscellaneous advance being taken by him (petitioner) in 1990 for development and maintenance work of rajghat Bandh. 2. 30 lacs was lying in balance as miscellaneous advance being taken by him (petitioner) in 1990 for development and maintenance work of rajghat Bandh. The petitioner replied immediately and informed that he had never taken any advance, nor he had undertaken the said work. Reacting to the reply, the opposite parties ordered for a preliminary enquiry. The enquiry officer prima facie held Sri Girdhar Gopal, Assistant engineer of the Division responsible for the financial lapse, in consequence whereof Sri Gopal was placed under suspension. However, in the order pertaining to the suspension of Sri Girdhar gopal, a charge-sheet was ordered to be served upon the petitioner as he had failed to account for the imprest money amounting to Rs. 2. 30 lacs. The petitioner was accused of having received a sum of Rs. 2. 30 lacs on 26. 10. 1990 by means of two separate receipts for Rs. 2 lacs and Rs. 30,000 respectively, which were duly signed by him. It was also alleged that the petitioner had misappropriated the temporary advance of Rs. 2. 30 lacs. As pleaded further, all allegations against the petitioner were concocted and frivolous. As a matter of fact, the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 were involved in the entire matter and it were they who had fraudulently misappropriated the entire sum of Rs. 3. 50 lacs sanctioned for maintenance and raising of Rajghat Bandh. However, on the basis of the concocted story, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 3. 8. 1995. Feeling aggrieved of the said order, he filed a Writ Petition No. 3444 (S/s)of 1995, which was disposed of finally vide order dated 22. 9. 1995 and thereby the opposite parties were directed that the petitioner be issued a charge-sheet within ten days from the date of the receipt of a certified copy of the Courts order and the petitioner was further directed to submit his written statement within a time stipulated in the charge-sheet and the enquiry was to be completed within three months. The disciplinary authority was also directed to take a final decision in another six weeks from the date of the receipt of the enquiry report. The disciplinary authority was also directed to take a final decision in another six weeks from the date of the receipt of the enquiry report. Provision was also made to the effect that in the event of failure of the opposite parties to serve the petitioner with a charge-sheet within ten days, the latter should be treated on duty and paid his salary with allowances. The opposite parties could not comply with the Courts orders regarding service of charge-sheet within ten days. The petitioner vide his letter of October 6, 1995, requested the opposite party No. 6 that since charge-sheet had not been served upon the petitioner in pursuance of the Courts orders, he should be allowed to join his duty. No action was taken within the stipulated time. However, the petitioner received the charge-sheet through proper channel on 6. 10. 1995. The opposite party No. 5 who was the enquiry officer served the charge-sheet upon the petitioner although he was neither the disciplinary nor the appointing authority of the petitioner. The charge-sheet deserved to be quashed on this ground alone as it was non est and void. Even the appointing authority had not approved the charge-sheet in question. By a direction recited in the charge-sheet, the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation reply to the charge-sheet. In compliance thereof, he submitted his written explanation on 18. 10. 1995 (misprinted at some places as 18. 10. 1990) categorically denying all the allegations levelled against him. Nothing was heard by him thereafter for quite some time. The enquiry officer did not indicate to the petitioner any date of the enquiry proceeding, nor he was ever asked by him for leading his evidence or cross-examining the witnesses against him. To the utter surprise of the petitioner, he received a letter dated 7. 2. 1996 from the Senior Staff Officer (Enquiry) along with a copy of the enquiry report. The petitioner was indicted for misappropriation of Rs. 2. 30 lacs and the Senior Staff Officer (Enquiry) had asked him to submit his comments on the enquiry report within seven days. The petitioner filed his pointwise reply to the enquiry report and submitted that the amount in question was never received by him and that the charges levelled against him were totally baseless and concocted. 2. 30 lacs and the Senior Staff Officer (Enquiry) had asked him to submit his comments on the enquiry report within seven days. The petitioner filed his pointwise reply to the enquiry report and submitted that the amount in question was never received by him and that the charges levelled against him were totally baseless and concocted. As a matter of fact, the ex parte findings of the enquiry officer were incorrect and false, as there was no basis to support the said findings. In fact, the petitioner was relieved of his charge on 30. 9. 1990 and he was not paid his salary for the month of October, 1990. When he was not in the office on 26. 10. 1990, question of his having received the amount in question by virtue of two separate receipts did not arise at all. The disciplinary authority, namely, the Engineer-in-Chief (Enquiry ). Irrigation Department did not find any substance in the reply of the petitioner and agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer issued the impugned removal order dated 27. 2. 1996 whereby the petitioner had been removed from service of the Department. In this way, the petitioner has been condemned unheard, as he was not given an opportunity of being heard by the enquiry officer. Therefore, the impugned order being in violation of the canons of natural justice deserves to be quashed. The said impugned order has further been termed by the petitioner to be discriminatory on the basis of his averment that the opposite party No. 4, who was responsible for the financial irregularity, has been retained in service. As a matter of fact, both the petitioner and Sri Girdhar Gopal should have been charged jointly and a common enquiry was expected to have been proceeded against them but orders for separate enquiries were issued which was most discriminatory and illegal on the part of the opposite party Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6. It was on the basis of these pleas that the petitioner has prayed for writs of certiorari and mandamus as indicated earlier. ( 3 ) SRI Suresh Chandra Sinha, the Assistant Engineer filed his counter-affidavit on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 6 and supported the removal order of the petitioner as it was based on the departmental enquiry, conducted in accordance with the rules. According to Mr. ( 3 ) SRI Suresh Chandra Sinha, the Assistant Engineer filed his counter-affidavit on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 6 and supported the removal order of the petitioner as it was based on the departmental enquiry, conducted in accordance with the rules. According to Mr. Sinha, the main charge against the petitioner that he had taken temporary advance of Rs. 2. 30 lacs on 26. 10. 1990 stood proved from the two separate receipts which were signed by none else than the petitioner and thus the latter had caused a loss of Rs. 2. 30 lacs to the State Government. The principles of natural justice were followed by the enquiry officer by providing the petitioner an opportunity to defend himself against the charges levelled against him. The enquiry officer proceeded to hold the enquiry on the basis of the evidence available on record and thereafter he submitted his report to the appointing authority, i. e. , the Engineer-in-Chief who after going through the record agreed with the findings and arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of having misappropriated the amount of Rs. 2. 30 lacs and then the decision to remove the petitioner from service was taken. The petitioner was again given an opportunity of being heard as vide letter of February 7, 1996, he was asked to submit his reply. The reply submitted by the petitioner was very well considered by the Engineer-in-Chief but it was found to be without any substance. It was revealed that the service record of the petitioner too was very bad as he earned several adverse entries during 1. 4. 1990 to 20. 8. 1995. All these adverse entries were duly communicated to him. As regards the opposite party No. 4, it was submitted by Mr. Sinha that a full-fledged departmental enquiry was conducted against him as well and the matter had been referred to the U. P. Public Service Commission for advice. Thus, it was wrong on the part of the petitioner to allege that the opposite party No. 4 had been exonerated. It was also wrong to allege that the enquiry proceeding against the petitioner was held ex parte. The enquiry officer scrutinised the written statement of the petitioner submitted by the latter in reply to the charge-sheet and recorded his findings on the basis of the material available on record. It was also wrong to allege that the enquiry proceeding against the petitioner was held ex parte. The enquiry officer scrutinised the written statement of the petitioner submitted by the latter in reply to the charge-sheet and recorded his findings on the basis of the material available on record. Thus, no illegality has been committed either by the enquiry officer or by the disciplinary authority and since the impugned order was passed in accordance with the law and in conformity with the principles of natural justice, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. ( 5 ) THE main grounds on the basis of which the impugned order has been challenged by the petitioner are that no prima facie case was made out against him. Instead the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 were involved in the fraudulent transaction of having withdrawn Rs. 3. 50 lacs and that the enquiry proceedings drawn against him were contrary to the Civil Services (Classification, control and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the C. C. A. Rules ). It was said further that the petitioner was not informed of any date on which the disciplinary proceedings were held, nor he was given an opportunity of either cross-examining the witnesses in support of the charge or permitting him to lead his defence evidence. As a matter of fact, the entire enquiry was ex parte and secretive and as such void ab initio. The Engineer-in-Chief has also not afforded an opportunity of hearing. The petitioners alleged involvement in receipt of Rs. 2. 30 lacs was nothing but the result of a conspiracy between the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4. ( 6 ) IT is evident from the above that the petitioner has challenged his removal order with the allegation that he had been deprived of an opportunity to defend himself. In this context, a reference to the C. C. A. Rules, which are admittedly applicable in the present case, appears to be relevant. 3 and 4. ( 6 ) IT is evident from the above that the petitioner has challenged his removal order with the allegation that he had been deprived of an opportunity to defend himself. In this context, a reference to the C. C. A. Rules, which are admittedly applicable in the present case, appears to be relevant. Rule 55 of the C. C. A. Rules, as applicable in Uttar Pradesh, clearly postulates that no order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank shall be passed on a person who is a member of a Civil Services, or holds a civil post under the State unless he has been informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action and has been afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself. The grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced in the form of a definite charge or charges which shall be communicated to the person charged and which shall be so clear and precise as to give sufficient indication to the charged Government servant of the facts and circumstances against him. He shall be required, within a reasonable time to put in a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. If he so desires, or if the authority concerned so directs, an oral inquiry shall be held in respect of such of the allegations as are not admitted. In that inquiry such oral evidence will be adduced as the inquiring officer considers necessary. The person charged shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses, to give evidence in person and to have such witnesses called as he may wish. It is thus abundantly clear that a delinquent official has to be given full opportunity to defend himself and for that such an employee is not only entitled to cross-examine the witnesses in support of the charge but also to examine the documents and put questions in respect thereof to the witnesses. Further, he is also authorised, in accordance with the C. C. A. Rules, to lead his defence evidence which includes examination of witnesses as well. In the case in hand, right from the very inception, the petitioner disputed the opposite parties claim of his having received rs. 2. 30 lacs for maintenance of Rajghat Bandh. In his written statement dated 20. 5. In the case in hand, right from the very inception, the petitioner disputed the opposite parties claim of his having received rs. 2. 30 lacs for maintenance of Rajghat Bandh. In his written statement dated 20. 5. 1992, he categorically denied having received the aforesaid sum. Not only this but he had also requested for an independent enquiry by some officer of another Division so that in addition to the amount in question, other facts and circumstances leading to rampant corruption and misappropriation of lacs of rupees could come to light. The petitioner had categorically alleged that it was the assistant Engineer Sri Girdhar Gopal alone and none else who was responsible for the mismanagement of the Division, particularly the maintenance of Rajghat Bandh. The same facts were disclosed by the petitioner in his written statement dated 18. 10. 1995 (Annexure-14 ). He has specifically denied the allegation of having signed the two vouchers for Rs. 2. 30 lacs in token of receipts. Further he questioned the genuineness of these two receipts and termed them to be forged and fictitious. These receipts do not bear any date and this omission appears to be relevant, as the petitioners contention is that he had been relieved of his charge on 30. 9. 1990 and, therefore, there was no question of his having taken the aforesaid amount. A perusal of the enquiry report dated 16. 1. 1996 (Annexure-13) would reveal that the enquiry officer simply relied upon the two disputed receipts alleged to have been signed by the petitioner and held him guilty on the said basis. Relevant entries in the cash-book were also referred. What is significant to mention is that the enquiry officer has not examined as a witness in support of the charge the assistant Engineer Sri Girdhar Gopal who was alleged to have handed over the amount of Rs. 2. 30 lacs to the petitioner. The examination of the said Engineer was a must, particularly when the petitioner had disputed the receipt of the aforesaid amount and also stated further that the said Assistant Engineer manufactured the said two receipts in a fraudulent manner with evil designs. The enquiry officer has not given cogent reasons to dispense with the examination of the said Engineer. The examination of the said Engineer was a must, particularly when the petitioner had disputed the receipt of the aforesaid amount and also stated further that the said Assistant Engineer manufactured the said two receipts in a fraudulent manner with evil designs. The enquiry officer has not given cogent reasons to dispense with the examination of the said Engineer. He has also not considered it appropriate to examine other higher authorities, such as the Executive Engineer of the Division, who according to the petitioner, was in connivance with Sri Girdhar Gopal. Other witnesses on the point of the petitioner having been relieved of his charge long before October 26, 1990, i. e. , the date on which the amount in question was allegedly handed over to him, should have also been examined by the enquiry officer. The fact that he was not paid his salary for the month of October, 1990, is evident from the record. Admittedly the payment of salary of that month was made to the petitioner long after. All these averments acquired significant dimensions. It appears that the enquiry officer was absolutely oblivious of the consequences, which were likely to arise on these facts being proved. No witness was examined before the enquiry officer to explain as to what was the justification of obtaining two receipts-one for Rs. 2 lacs and the other for Rs. 30,000 when the amount was handed over on the same date. Also none came forward to put forth any reason as to why the two receipts in disputes do not bear any date. In the absence of proven facts, the petitioners allegation that the Assistant Engineer Sri Girdhar Gopal manufactured these receipts and entries in the cash-book cannot be simply brushed aside. ( 7 ) FURTHER if given a chance to defend himself, the petitioner would have adduced his evidence in support of his case that neither he had taken the money nor he was holding the post of Junior engineer in the Division on the alleged date of payment. As said above, it has not been disputed that the enquiry officer did not fix a date to either record the evidence of the two sides, nor he informed the petitioner regarding any step towards holding of the enquiry. As said above, it has not been disputed that the enquiry officer did not fix a date to either record the evidence of the two sides, nor he informed the petitioner regarding any step towards holding of the enquiry. These serious omissions on the part of the enquiry officer clearly establish that the petitioner was not afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself. In other words, the enquiry officer failed to fulfil the mandatory requirements of Rule 55 of the C. C. A. Rules. It is clearly borne out from the record that the enquiry officer after serving the petitioner with charge-sheet and obtaining his reply thereto drew a long silence and without resorting to conducting any proceeding associating the petitioner therein, straightaway submitted the enquiry report. It was a wrong procedure adopted by the enquiry officer. The Honble Supreme Court in state of Punjab v. Bhagat Ram, 1975 (2) SCR 370 , ruled : the meaning of a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken is that the Government servant is afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself against the charges on which inquiry is held. The Government servant should be given an opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence. He can do so when he is told what the charges against him are. He can do so by cross-examining the witnesses produced against him. " ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties argued that the petitioner himself was to be blamed for not participating in the enquiry, nor conveying his intention either to cross-examine the witnesses or lead his own defence evidence. The argument is without merit as the petitioner denied in clear and express terms that the Assistant Engineer Sri Girdhar Gopal and the Executive Engineer, Incharge of the Division being in connivance with each other had manipulated the theory of advancement of the amount in question to the petitioner and manufactured the two receipts and entries in the cash-book. The settled law on the point is that it is the obligation of the enquiry officer to provide an adequate opportunity to the delinquent official as the latter is already in the dock. The settled law on the point is that it is the obligation of the enquiry officer to provide an adequate opportunity to the delinquent official as the latter is already in the dock. This Court in Ram Bhul Sharma v. State of U. P. and others, 1997 (15) LCD 1213, has laid down that if an enquiry officer fails to hold an oral enquiry which was necessary to prove the charges, may be it was held ex parte, the whole enquiry stands vitiated and the order of dismissal along with the order directing recovery of alleged financial loss caused to the State Government is liable to be set aside. It was held further that the purpose of Rule 55 of the C. C. A. Rules is to give a Government servant an opportunity to exonerate himself from the charges and if the opportunity has to be reasonable one, then he should necessarily be allowed to show that the evidence against him is not worthy of credence or consideration and this can only be shown by him provided he is given a chance to cross-examine the witnesses called against him and to examine himself or any other witness in support of his defence. All this is implicit in the language of the rule. ( 9 ) IT is noteworthy that the aforesaid rule is based on the principles of natural justice and the settled legal position is that in spite of there being no specific demand by the delinquent official for an oral enquiry, it is the legal obligation of the enquiry officer to provide full opportunity of hearing, failing which the whole of the enquiry stands vitiated. The aforesaid view is further fortified by this Courts decisions in Uma Shanker Yadav v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, lucknow and others, 1994 SCD 260 and Lalta Prasad v. State of U. P. and others, 1998 (16)LCD 358. In both these decisions, this Court has held that it is incumbent upon the enquiry officer to hold the enquiry and give intimation to the charged officer in writing about the date, time and place of enquiry so that he may participate in the proceedings. In the case in hand, since the enquiry officer failed to discharge his obligation in the terms of above, his report loses the sanctity of impartiality, the principle enshrined in Rule 55 of the C. C. A. Rules. In the case in hand, since the enquiry officer failed to discharge his obligation in the terms of above, his report loses the sanctity of impartiality, the principle enshrined in Rule 55 of the C. C. A. Rules. ( 10 ) THE contention of the opposite parties counsel that this Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the enquiry officer in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India, is no doubt true but it does not mean that under no circumstances can the court interfere. The power of judicial review available to a High Court under the Constitution takes in its stride the domestic enquiry as well and this Court can, therefore, interfere with the conclusions arrived at therein if there was no convincing evidence to support the findings of the enquiry officer. It was supplemented further that the Engineer-in-Chief has dealt with all the points in detail and whatever the lacuna could be said to have crept in earlier, was bridged up by the disciplinary authority. This argument too is devoid of any merit as the Engineer-in-Chief, who passed the impugned order, has not followed the principles of natural justice as enshrined in rule 55 of the C. C. A. Rules. The disciplinary authority simply served the copy of the enquiry report upon the petitioner and did not even issue show cause notice to him before he was removed from service. A careful perusal of the impugned order would reveal that even the engineer-in-Chief based his findings on the two receipts alleged to have been signed by the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the petitioner questioned the genuineness of these receipts and alleged that they were manufactured by Sri Girdhar Gopal in connivance with the Executive engineer. This allegation has not been delved upon by the disciplinary authority in the impugned order. Also the disciplinary authority has not considered the petitioners right of being heard by the enquiry officer, nor any cogent reason has been offered necessitating dispensation of the provisions of Rule 55. It appears that the disciplinary authority has also ignored the mandatory provisions of the C. C. A. Rules regarding the procedure to be followed in enquiry proceedings. Also the disciplinary authority has not considered the petitioners right of being heard by the enquiry officer, nor any cogent reason has been offered necessitating dispensation of the provisions of Rule 55. It appears that the disciplinary authority has also ignored the mandatory provisions of the C. C. A. Rules regarding the procedure to be followed in enquiry proceedings. In his representation against the enquiry report, it was clearly stated by the petitioner that he was not incharge of the maintenance of Rajghat Bandh in the month of October, 1990, as he had already been relieved by his superior authorities. This contention of the petitioner was rejected by the disciplinary authority and it was held on the basis of some of his statements that he admitted his retention in the Division. His averment in the representation of February 15, 1996, on the point was not taken into consideration. In this way, the entire material on record, which was disputed by the petitioner, has been acted upon by the disciplinary authority on the same line of thinking as followed by the enquiry officer. Therefore, by no stretch of reasoning, it can be said that the lacuna left by the enquiry officer in conducting the proceedings and arriving at his conclusions was adequately rectified. The fact remains that the petitioner was deprived of a reasonable opportunity of being heard. ( 11 ) THE disciplinary authority did not even consider it appropriate to follow the provisions of mandatory Rule 55a of the C. C. A. Rules. The said Rule requires that in case of a penalty of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, the punishing authority shall give a notice to the charged official stating the penalty proposed to be imposed on him. The first part of the said rule provides as follows : "55a. The said Rule requires that in case of a penalty of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, the punishing authority shall give a notice to the charged official stating the penalty proposed to be imposed on him. The first part of the said rule provides as follows : "55a. After the enquiry against a Government servant has been completed and after the punishing authority has arrived at provisional conclusions in regard to the penalty to be imposed, the Government servant charged shall, if the penalty proposed is dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, be supplied with a copy of the proceedings prepared under Rule 55 together with the recommendations, if any, in regard to punishment made by the officer conducting the inquiry and be given a notice stating the penalty proposed to be imposed on him and calling upon him to submit, by a particular date, which affords him reasonable time, such representation as he may wish to make on the proposed penalty, provided that such representation shall be based on the evidence adduced during the enquiry. " ( 12 ) IN the case in hand, no doubt a copy of the enquiry officers report was sent to the petitioner but he was not informed about the proposed penalty of removal. Obviously thus the provisions of rule 55a have also not been given due regard by the punishing authority. An authority subordinate to the Engineer-in-Chief simply asked the petitioner to submit in written statement comments upon the enquiry officers report. It can, therefore, be reasonably held that neither the enquiry officer nor the disciplinary authority has afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. So from this point of view as well, the impugned order of the petitioners removal is not sustainable. ( 13 ) NO doubt the charge against the petitioner was serious but the gravity of the charge did not require the disciplinary authority to deviate from the mandatory provisions of the C. C. A. Rules. If in an enquiry held in accordance with the C. C. A. Rules, a delinquent official is found guilty, he deserves punishment but nobody should be condemned unheard because it is against the provisions of natural justice. Without making proper enquiry and complying with the mandatory provisions of law and rules, no punishment can be inflicted upon any official. If in an enquiry held in accordance with the C. C. A. Rules, a delinquent official is found guilty, he deserves punishment but nobody should be condemned unheard because it is against the provisions of natural justice. Without making proper enquiry and complying with the mandatory provisions of law and rules, no punishment can be inflicted upon any official. It is for this reason that the impugned order of removal has got to be quashed. ( 14 ) ACCORDINGLY the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of removal dated 27. 2. 1996, contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition is hereby quashed. However, it will be open to the opposite parties to hold a fresh enquiry on the charges levelled against the petitioner in accordance with the C. C. A. Rules and pass appropriate orders. Subject to the result of any such enquiry, the petitioner would be deemed to be in service from the date he was placed under suspension until the date of his superannuation. ( 15 ) THERE would be no order as to costs.