JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner was charge sheeted for the allegations mentioned in the charge sheet. One Accounts Officer was appointed as Enquiry Officer to hold the detailed enquiry in the matter of charge sheet vide order dated 17.5.90 with the direction to submit the enquiry report by 30.6.90 before the Board i.e. Disciplinary Authority. The copy of the charge sheet dated 25.5.90 has been annexed to writ petition as Annexure-3, that is, even before issuing the charge sheet, the Enquiry Officer had already been appointed vide annexure-2 to submit the enquiry report. The petitioner asked for certain documents. Vide order dated 13.7.90 (Ann.5), (received on 17.7.90) the petitioner was told that he can see the documents by 16.7.90 and that if the reply is not filed by 17.7.90, he will be proceeded ex parte. Vide annexure-6 the petitioner had requested that the order dated 13.7.90 has been received by him on 17.7.90, therefore, he should be given an another opportunity, which was received by the Enquiry Officer on 18.7.90. However, on 18.7.90 itself the Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report holding the petitioner to be guilty, on which enquiry report the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 5.7.91 and 14.5.92. The petitioner has challenged the Enquiry report dated 18.7.90, dismissal order and consequential orders and prayed to quash the same and for reinstatement with all consequential benefits. 2. For the reason that as per annexure-5 the petitioner was asked to submit the reply by 17.7.90, it is not understandable as to how, even if no reply was submitted by petitioner by 17.7.90, the Enquiry Officer could submit the enquiry report holding the petitioner to be guilty. 3. Even if no reply was submitted before the Disciplinary Authority, but it was incumbent for the Enquiry Officer to have associated the petitioner in enquiry proceeding. The Enquiry Officer did not fix any date calling the petitioner to be present in enquiry, but it has reported that because of the reason that no reply has been filed, therefore, the enquiry report is submitted against the petitioner. 4. The record was called for. From the record reveals that nothing has been brought on record. 5. The Enquiry Officer did not fix any date calling the petitioner to be present in enquiry, but it has reported that because of the reason that no reply has been filed, therefore, the enquiry report is submitted against the petitioner. 4. The record was called for. From the record reveals that nothing has been brought on record. 5. Faced with the situation, during the course of arguments counsel for respondent submit that the order passed were not proper, therefore, prays that even if the writ petition is to be allowed it should be allowed with continuity of service of petitioner but less back wages should be paid. 6. Even though I do not find any reason to reduce the back wages specially when the respondents had totally flouted the principles of natural justice, but for the reason that the petitioner, who is present in court along with his Advocate and the respondents are agreed to get pass compromise order for setting aside the impugned order of dismissal of petitioner from service and the petitioner should be reinstated back with continuity of service but with 60% back wages. I order accordingly. 7. The agreed order is passed. The impugned orders of dismissal of petitioner from service and all consequential orders are quashed and set aside. The petitioner be reinstated back in service with continuity of service. However, the petitioner shall get only 60% back wages.With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed, Petition Allowed. *******