Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 786 (CAL)

Sanjoy Kumar Singh v. Union of India

2001-12-21

ARUN KUMAR MITRA

body2001
JUDGMENT This writ petition when was moved initially was moved with notice to Union of India the respondent No. 1 on 7.10.93 Rule was issued and Mr. L.N. Jalan appeared for the respondent No. 1 Union of India and waived service of rule. No interim order was passed and Hon'ble Justice Susanta Chaterjee issued directions to file affidavit and the rule was made returnable 14 weeks hence. On 13.6.97 Hon'ble Justice Barin Ghosh passed an order directing the writ petitioner to file necessary requisite for service of the Rule and copies of the writ petition upon the respondents. Liberty was given to the petitioners to mention the matter for being heard after service of the rule upon the respondents is effected. It appears from order sheet that on 21.6.97 requisite as per the direction dated 13.6.97 was filed. It also appears from the records that notices were issued. But on 10.9.2001 and 12.9.2001 when the matter was taken up for hearing no-one appeared on behalf of the respondents neither any affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on their behalf. It also appears from the records that Mr. L.N. Jalan learned Advocate filed Vokalatnama on behalf of the Union of India. 2. In the above state of affairs matter was taken up for hearing and heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In the instant writ proceeding the petitioner has challenged the charge-sheet dated 15.4.91, the finding of the enquiry officer dated 27.11.91 the order of removal dated 29.7.92 and also the order of the appellate authority dated 12.4.93. The writ petitioner has also prayed for a declaration of Rules 143(2) and 153(8) of Railway Protection Force Rules as ultra vires. 3. The case as has been made out by the writ petitioner in the instant writ petition is inter alia as follows:- The writ petitioner is a Constable working under Railway Protection Force and he was posted at Matibag Yard at the material point of time. Suspension order was issued against the petitioner through Memo dated 16.3.91 and through that memo the petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 15.3.91. The suspension order was issued by Assistant Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, South Eastern Railway, Nagpur. Subsequently, the said suspension order was revoked through Memo dated 16.4.91 issued by the said Assistant Security Commissioner with effect from 15.4.91. 4. The suspension order was issued by Assistant Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, South Eastern Railway, Nagpur. Subsequently, the said suspension order was revoked through Memo dated 16.4.91 issued by the said Assistant Security Commissioner with effect from 15.4.91. 4. Subsequently, charge-sheet was issued after a month from the date of withdrawal of suspension order that is on 15.4.91. Along with this Memorandum dated 15.4.91 Articles of charges and statement of allegation were annexed. 5. The petitioner has annexed the charge-sheet as Annexure-C to the writ petition. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet. Enquiry' Officer gave his findings. Second show cause notice was issued, the petitioner submitted a written reply to the said second show cause notice in 'the nature of representation denying all the allegations against him on the basis of evidence on records. Ultimately, order of removal dated 29.7.92 was passed by the disciplinary authority removing the petitioner from service. 6. The petitioner preferred statutory appeal before the appellate authority and the said appeal was rejected by the appellate authority by an order dated 12.4.93. 7. As stated earlier, the petitioner has challenged the entire disciplinary proceeding starting from the issuance of charge-sheet to the final order passed by the disciplinary authority and also the order of the appellate authority rejecting his appeal. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire disciplinary proceeding is bad for violation of the statutory provisions, for non-compliance of the principles of natural Justice and because of bias and mala fide on the part of the disciplinary authority and as such the entire disciplinary proceeding should be quashed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the order of the appellate authority is also bad because of non-compliance of the statutory provisions. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that from the initiation of the proceeding that is from the issuance of the charge-sheet till its completion the disciplinary authority acted in a closed mind and in each and every step mala fide appears to be obvious and in each and every step principles of natural Justice have also been violated. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that from the initiation of the proceeding that is from the issuance of the charge-sheet till its completion the disciplinary authority acted in a closed mind and in each and every step mala fide appears to be obvious and in each and every step principles of natural Justice have also been violated. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 153.8 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 has already been declared illegal being violative of the provisions of Articles 14 of the Constitution of India by virtue of two judgments delivered by this Hon'ble Court, one by Hon'ble Justice Manoranjan Mallick and the other by Justice S.B. Sinha and the authority proceeded on the enquiry acting upon said Rule 153.8 which has already been declared illegal. 9. Now in the instant case, the following points have to be decided: (1) Whether in its scope of judicial review the writ Court should interfere with the order of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. (2) Whether the charge-sheet suffers from bias. (3) Whether the enquiry proceeding is vitiated because of violation of statutory provision or violation of the principles of natural Justice or is perverse. (4) Whether the disciplinary authority acted legally in passing the impugned final order of removal. (5) Whether the appellate authority acted legally or followed the statutory provisions in rejecting the statutory appeal of the petitioner in the instant case. 10. The law is well settled regarding the scope of interference of the writ Court in a departmental proceeding in its scope for judicial review. Time and again or rather repeatedly the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions observed:- "Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made." 11. This observation has been made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (1) 1995 (6) SCC 750, Union of India & Anr. v. B.C. Chaturvedi and this view has been supported in various other decisions and' it is needless to encumber this judgment by quoting all the decisions inasmuch as in the same decision of B. C. Chaturvedi (supra), it has been observed:- "Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment.” 12. v. B.C. Chaturvedi and this view has been supported in various other decisions and' it is needless to encumber this judgment by quoting all the decisions inasmuch as in the same decision of B. C. Chaturvedi (supra), it has been observed:- "Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment.” 12. It would be therefore needless to specify that there is no straight jacket formula prescribed in the matter of interference of the writ Court in its judicial review and each case is to be decided in its own perspective and on perusal of the documents on record of that particular case. Therefore, in answering the first point this Court thinks that discussion on other points is necessary for arriving at a conclusion as to whether interference in the proceeding or final order or the appellate order is to be made or not. 13. Let us not make any discussion regarding the suspension order since the said suspension order has been revoked after the issuance of the same. 14. Now let us have a look into the charge-sheet which is Annexure-C to the writ petition. In this context at the very out set it requires to be stated that basic principles of service jurisprudence speaks of arriving at a decision by the authority as to whether a charge-sheet is to be issued or not, then and thereafter if the authority is satisfied the charge-sheet is issued. On the issuance of the charge-sheet the delinquent employee should be given a chance to give his reply stating about his defence to the allegations levelled against him, the authority is then to scrutinise and scan the charge-sheet as well as the reply and after careful scrutiny authority is to come to a decision whether enquiry against the delinquent employee need be conducted or not. 15. In the memorandum dated 15.4.91, Annexure-C to the writ petition the Articles of charges statement of allegations list of witnesses and list of documents have been annexed. The first paragraph of the Memo states: "Allegations on which the enquiry was proposed to be held are set out in the enclosed statement of allegations and the charges framed on the basis of the said allegations are specified in the enclosed statement of charges." 16. The first paragraph of the Memo states: "Allegations on which the enquiry was proposed to be held are set out in the enclosed statement of allegations and the charges framed on the basis of the said allegations are specified in the enclosed statement of charges." 16. In Paragraph 2 this memorandum states:- "Shri L. N. Ghosh, CCE/CCY is nominated as enquiry officer/I will conduct the enquiry myself." 17. In Paragraph 3 it states:- "The enquiry is fixed on 27.4.91 at RPF Post MIB Yard at 10.00 Hrs. You should attend the enquiry, failing which the enquiry will be conducted ex parte." 18. As stated earlier the authority has to come to a decision first whether there will be charge-sheet, then whether there will be enquiry then the question of naming the enquiry officer and then it is the duty of the enquiry officer (not the duty of the disciplinary authority) to fix up the date and venue of the enquiry. But in the instant case, the Assistant Security Commissioner, the charge-sheet issuing authority at the very first memorandum decided about the enquiry without even considering or before submission of the reply to the charge-sheet by the delinquent employee and fix the date and place of enquiry himself with observation that in case of failure to attend the enquiry it will be made ex parte. This indicates the mind of the disciplinary authority which is closed and it is real bias. 19. Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision reported in (2) AIR 1974 SC 1589 , Krishna Chandra v. Union of India observed:- "It is very necessary for an authority which orders an enquiry to be satisfied that there are prima facie grounds for holding a disciplinary enquiry and, therefore, before he makes up his mind he will either himself investigate or direct his subordinate to investigate the matter and it is only after he receives the results of this investigation then he can decide as to whether disciplinary action is called for or not." 20. Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision reported in (3) AIR 2001 SC 343 . State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna & Ors. Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision reported in (3) AIR 2001 SC 343 . State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna & Ors. discussed about the test of existence of bias or mala fide in an administrative action and scope of judicial review in such an administrative action and observed:- "The case test is as to whether there is a mere apprehension of bias or there is a real danger of bias and it is on this score that the surrounding circumstances must and ought to be collated and necessary conclusion drawn therefrom. In the event, however, a conclusion is otherwise that there is existing a real danger if bias administrative action cannot be sustained." 21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case further observed:- "It is well settled in service jurisprudence that the authority has to apply its mind upon receipt of reply to the charge-sheet or show cause as the case may be as to whether a further enquiry is called for. In the event upon deliberation and due consideration, it is in the affirmative-the enquiry follows but not otherwise. Thus, where even before reply was filed by the delinquent Chief Secretary to the charge-sheet issued against him, the Chief Minister made an announcement appointing an enquiry officer to go into the charges thus indicating its mind set that the enquiry shall proceed irrespective of the reply it; cannot be said that the attitude of the authorities towards the delinquent is free and fair." 22. In the instant case it appears also from the Memorandum itself that Articles of charges were furnished in which Memorandum the authority informed the petitioner that there will be an enquiry in the same Memorandum the authority declared the name of the inquiry officer and also fixed the venue and time of the enquiry. Therefore, before receiving any reply to the allegations/charges levelled against the petitioner, the authority took a decision to conduct the enquiry and even the authority assumed the jurisdiction of the enquiry officer and fixed the venue and time of the enquiry, which clearly shows that the Memorandum containing Articles of charges has been issued by the authority with a biased mind and the same indicate its mind set that the enquiry shall proceed irrespective of reply and as quoted above in the case of V.K. Khanna & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed the attitude of the authority towards the delinquent in such circumstances is not free and fair. 23. Now on this vitiated charge-sheet enquiry was started against the petitioner. The enquiry officer served a notice dated 23.4.91 on the petitioner intimating him about his appointment as enquiry officer, about the date of enquiry (which has already been communicated and fixed by the disciplinary authority). In the Memorandum containing Articles of charges through the said notice the petitioner was asked to engage a friend under Rule 153.8 of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, Now Rule 153.8 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, (hereinafter referred to as the said rules) provide as follows:- "The enrolled member charged shall not be allowed to bring in a legal practitioner at the Proceedings but he may be allowed to take the assistance of any other member of the Force hereinafter referred to as 'friend' where in the opinion of the enquiry officer may, at the request of the Party charged, put his defence properly. Such 'friend' must be a serving member of the force of or below the rank of sub-inspector, for the time being posted in the same division or the battalion where the proceedings are pending and not acting as a 'friend' in any other proceedings pending any where. Such 'friend' shall, however not be allowed to address the enquiry officer not to cross-examine the witnesses." 24. This particular part of the rule or this provision appears clearly to be ultra vires Article of the Constitution of India inasmuch as it has put an unreasonable restriction in the defence of a charged employee and preventing him from defending his case effectively in the direct process this provision is violative of the principles of natural Justice also. The vires of this provision that is Rule 153.8 of the said Rules of 1987 was challenged before this Hon'ble Court in two writ proceedings one being C.O. No. 6694 (W) of 1991 (4) T.P. Chowdhury v. Union of India & Ors. in this matter on 4.12.91 Hon'ble Justice Manoranjan Mallick passed a judgment that this provision ultra vires. Articles 14 and directed the authority concerned not to act upon the said memo and quashed the said memo. 25. Again in another judgment the Hon'ble Justice S.B. Sinha took the same view and observed that this is unconstitutional illegal and unfair. in this matter on 4.12.91 Hon'ble Justice Manoranjan Mallick passed a judgment that this provision ultra vires. Articles 14 and directed the authority concerned not to act upon the said memo and quashed the said memo. 25. Again in another judgment the Hon'ble Justice S.B. Sinha took the same view and observed that this is unconstitutional illegal and unfair. 26. In my view also when Lawyers are not allowed and the employees asked to take the help of his office colleagues then and there restriction cannot be imposed bringing down the scope of engaging some particular persons according to the choice of the authority. 27. This Rule 153.8 as stated earlier was challenged and declared ultra vires by two Hon'ble Judges referred to hereinabove, one by Honble Justice S.B. Sinha and other by Hon'ble Justice Manoranjan Mallick and inspite of that knowing fully well that this rule is ultra vires/quashed, the enquiry officer proceeded on the basis of this rule and thus, got the enquiry vitiated. 28. Criminal proceedings was started against the petitioner and during the pendency of the criminal case the petitioner was removed from service. The petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit annexing the judgment delivered on 27.7.2001 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 1999 (5) Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of Maharashtra through RPF Post Matibag Nagpur. In the said judgment the order is as follows:- (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) Finding of conviction recorded against accused Sanjay Kumar by JHFC Railway Court in Reg. Cr. Case No. 236 of 1991 for the offence punishable under Section 3(A) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. 1966 that finding is hereby set aside and accused Sanjay Kumar is acquitted for want of legal and material evidence. (iii) Bailbonds of accused Sanjay Kumar stands cancelled. (iv) The fine, if deposited by Sanjay Kumar be returned to him after the appeal period is over. 29. It does not appear that against this judgment the RPF authority went higher up. It would appear from the charge-sheet/statement of allegation levelled against the petitioner, that the petitioner was served with chargesheet on identical set of facts and the evidence in the criminal proceeding as well as the evidence in the departmental proceeding are common. 30. In the similar circumstances in a decision reported in (6) AIR 1999 SC 1416 . It would appear from the charge-sheet/statement of allegation levelled against the petitioner, that the petitioner was served with chargesheet on identical set of facts and the evidence in the criminal proceeding as well as the evidence in the departmental proceeding are common. 30. In the similar circumstances in a decision reported in (6) AIR 1999 SC 1416 . M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:- "Since the facts and the evidence in both the proceeding, namely the departmental proceedings and the criminal case were the same without there being any Iota of difference the distinction which is usually drawn as between the departmental proceedings and the criminal case on the basis of approach and burden of proof would not be applicable to the instant case." 31. For this reason the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal. In the instant case also the allegation levelled against the petitioner in the departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings are identical and based on same set of evidence and when on trial or examination of witnesses or evidences the learned Judge acquitted the petitioner from the criminal charges it can safely be said that on the self-same allegation and on the self-evidence the departmental enquiry cannot proceed but interestingly the authority even before conclusion of the trial in the criminal case completed the enquiry and removed the petitioner from service. Basic principles of service jurisprudence is that the man requires a fair trial and when he is charged with certain offences be must get reasonable opportunity to defend himself and the mind of the authority will not be pre-judised or biased or closed. But in the instant case from the issuance of the charge-sheet the mind of the authority seems to be tainted with bias. It would be useless to give reference to many other Supreme Court judgments where also the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided that the trial before a criminal case is an exhaustive trial on examination and cross-examination of the witnesses on production of exhibits and evidence and the result of the criminal case after trial should be given due regard in considering the charges against the delinquent employee when the authority in its criminal proceeding as well as the departmental proceeding relies on same charges and common evidence. It is. It is. however, obvious that the authority has power to take such steps that is criminal proceeding and departmental proceeding can run simultaneously, but when those are bare on two identical set of facts relying on identical eye witness and evidence and when on a trial the criminal Court comes to a finding inference can be drawn from the said finding. In the instant case, therefore, adverse inference can be drawn against the authority and in favour of the petitioner relying on the judgment delivered by the learned Court in the criminal trial. 32. When examining the proceeding it also appears that materials which are relevant for the purpose of taking defence were not supplied to the petitioner and this is gross violation of principles of natural. Justice and, in fact, in such case the authority has exercised his power mechanically. Now in the judgment reported in (7) 1993 SCC (L&S) 109, State Bank of India & Ors. v. D.C. Agarwal & Anr. Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:- "The disciplinary authority, while imposing punishment, major or minor cannot act on materials which is neither supplied nor shown to the delinquent." 33. In this case, therefore, another blatent illegality/irregularity was committed. 34. In a departmental enquiry, the enquiry officer when submits the report on conclusion, it makes recommendation in the matter of punishment which is likely to affect the mind of the punishing authority even with regard to penalty or punishment to be imposed on such officer and in this regard views of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been expressed in the decision reported in (8) 1969 SLR 519, State of Gujarat v. R. G. Teredesal which goes to say that the requirement of a reasonable opportunity, therefore, would not be satisfied unless the entire report of the enquiry including his views in the matter of punishment are disclosed to the delinquent servant. 35. Though it is not the duty of the writ Court to re-appreciate evidence of a departmental enquiry but the writ Court can scan the evidence in the case to find it, as to whether the enquiry officer has arrived at the decision relying on the evidence of the materials on record or he has come to a finding only on surmise and conjecture. Therefore, in the instant case, the observations of the enquiry officer and also the conclusion are in serious contradiction with the evidence on record. Therefore, in the instant case, the observations of the enquiry officer and also the conclusion are in serious contradiction with the evidence on record. The report, therefore, becomes perverse and it suffers from non-application of mind. It goes without saying that the report of the enquiry officer must be based on reasons and those reasonings should be disclosed and in absence of non-disclosure of reasons makes the enquiry report bad. In the decision reported in (9) AIR 1985 SC 1121 , Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer & Ors. Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:- "Where a disciplinary enquiry affects the livelihood and is likely to cast a stigma and it has to be held in accordance with the principles of natural Justice, the minimum expectation is that the report must be a reasoned one. The Court then may not enter into the adequacy or sufficiency of evidence. But where the evidence is annexed to an order sheet and no co-relation is established between the two showing application of mind, we are constrained to 6bserve that it is not an enquiry report at all." 36. In this departmental proceeding from the initiation till completion by way of order of removal from service the entire proceeding clearly appears to be bad-in-law because of bias and issuance of charge-sheet placement or reliance on a rule which has already been declared ultra vires, noncompliance of the principles of natural Justice and non-compliance of the statutory provisions. The petitioner has been removed from service by an order dated 29.7.92 which has been made Annexure-H to the writ petition on the basis of such biased charge-sheet initiated enquiry report and mala fied proceedings. 37. Against the said impugned order of removal the petitioner preferred statutory appeal in the light of the provisions made in 217.3 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. 37. Against the said impugned order of removal the petitioner preferred statutory appeal in the light of the provisions made in 217.3 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. Now said Rule 217.3 of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 runs in the manner as follows:- "In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the punishments specified in Rules 148 or 149 or enhancing any penalty imposed under the said rules the appellate authority shall consider- (a) whether the procedure prescribed in these rules has been complied with, and if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in violation of any constitutional provisions or in miscarriage of Justice; (b) whether the findings are warranted and based on evidence on record; and (c) whether the punishment or the enhanced punishment imposed is adequate or inadequate or severe and pass speaking orders for- (i) setting aside, confirming, reducing or enhancing the punishment, or (ii) remitting the case to the authority which imposed or enhanced the punishment or to any other authority with such directions as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case: Provided that:- (i) no order imposing an enhanced punishment shall be passed unless the appellant is given an opportunity of making any representation which he may wish to make against such enhanced punishment: and (ii) if the enhanced punishment, which the appellate authority proposes to impose, is one of the punishments specified in Clauses (a) to (d) of Rule 148.2 and an inquiry under Rule 153 has not already been held in the case, the appellant authority shall, subject to the provisions of Rule 153 itself hold such inquiry or direct that such inquiry be held and thereafter on a consideration of the proceedings of such inquiry pass such orders as it may deem fit." 38. If, therefore, we throw a glance on this particular rule, it will appear that when disposing of the appeal the statutory appellate authority shall have to consider three things, namely:- (i) whether the procedure prescribed in these rules has been complied with, and if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in violation of any constitutional provisions or in miscarriage of Justice. (ii) whether the findings are warranted and based on evidence on record. (iii) and whether the punishment imposed its adequate or inadequate or severe and pass speaking orders for setting aside, confirming, reducing or enhancing the punishment. (ii) whether the findings are warranted and based on evidence on record. (iii) and whether the punishment imposed its adequate or inadequate or severe and pass speaking orders for setting aside, confirming, reducing or enhancing the punishment. But in the instant case, these three mandatory conditions were not fulfilled. Rule 217.3 speaks about consideration of an appeal by the appellate authority, now what the term consideration in, such circumstances means have been clarified in the decision reported in (10) AIR 1986 SC 1040 , R.P. Bhatt v. Union of India:- "The word 'consider' in Rule 27(2) implies due application of mind', It is clear upon the terms of Rule 27(2) that the appellate authority is required to consider (1) whether the procedure laid down in the Rules has been complied with; and if not, whether such noncompliance has resulted in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or in failure of Justice; (2) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on record ; and (3) whether the penalty imposed is adequate; and thereafter pass orders confirming, enhancing etc. the penalty, or may remit back the case to the authority which imposed the same. Rule 27 (2) casts a duty on the appellate authority to consider the relevant factors set forth in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) thereof." 39. If it is compared, it will be seen that this Rule 27 (2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 is in pari materia with Rule 217.3 of this Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. 40. In that view of the matter the impugned appellate order dated 12.4.93 is also not sustainable in law. 41. On the discussions above, the impugned charge-sheet dated 15.4.91 the finding of the enquiry officer dated 27.11.91 impugned order of removal dated 29.7.92 and the impugned order of the appellate authority dated 12.4,93 (as contained in Annexures- 'C' 'E' 'H' & 'J') are set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioner in his service. 41. On the discussions above, the impugned charge-sheet dated 15.4.91 the finding of the enquiry officer dated 27.11.91 impugned order of removal dated 29.7.92 and the impugned order of the appellate authority dated 12.4,93 (as contained in Annexures- 'C' 'E' 'H' & 'J') are set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioner in his service. The respondent authorities are also directed to pay the petitioner his arrear dues upto the date of order of removal and the authorities will go on paying the current salaries of the petitioners month by month and the petitioner would be treated as in continuous service without any break and will be given all other benefits including increments, promotions and revisions of pay which he ought to have got had he been in his service. Considering the facts this Court thinks that since from the date of dismissal till today the petitioner did not perform his work under whatever circumstances it may be, the petitioner will not be entitled to his salaries for this period that is from the date of the removal till the date of passing this judgment but that does not mean that this period will be treated as his break in service. And on the contrary his service will be treated as continuous for all practical purposes. The respondent authorities are directed to pay the arrear dues of the petitioner if any, within a month from the date of the communication of the order and go on paying his salaries and other allowances month by month on reinstatement and the respondent authorities are also directed to reinstate the petitioner in his services within a week from the date of communication of this order. The learned Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take out the gist and operative portion of this order and to communicate the same to the respondent authorities and the respondent authorities are directed to act on such communication. The writ application is thus allowed in the above manner. There will be however no order as to costs. Xerox certified copy if urgently applied for will be made available to the petitioner on urgent basis.