Judgment 1. This appeal is by an employee of the Bihar Industrial and Technical Consultancy Organisation Ltd. Any order recorded on this appeal in fact would be academic. The Court enquired from learned counsel appearing for the Company whether it still survives and is functioning. Learned counsel Ms. Sheela Sharma submitted that the company is defunct and has ceased the business and in fact she is without instructions. Perhaps this is one of the Government companies which may have been registered under section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 and its affairs have come to a grinding halt. 2. The petition was filed against this Government company by Sampat Kumar Singh. He sought reliefs, one of which is regarding reinstatement and another for arrears of salary. Apparently since no relief was granted, thus, the present Letters Patent Appeal. 3. An examination of the record shows a very sordid picture on the episode which bundled out the services of the petitioner- appellant. There are two aspects. Admittedly, what-ever other reason may be there, this petitioner-appellant received a punishment of removal and thereafter, in effect, of having his services restored with effect from 28 May, 1992 maintaining continuity of service. The order was being passed on 8 October, 1992. The order records; "their salary for the period between 28.5.1992 and 30.5.1992, however, will be payable to them after having closely watched their behavioural pattern for six months". The order is signed by one Ashok Kumar Sinha, Managing Director. This is a very unusual order that continuity of service has been ordered but the salary has been withheld subject to future behavioural pattern. Social censure is not a punishment which has been left with the management. This order while it may have restored his service was virtually giving another punishment. 4. The charge on which the petitioner-appellant was dismissed was for his absence on 16 October, 1992 by having left the place of duty without grant of leave. But the dismissal order which was passed is because of the absence on 10 March, 1994 which punishment has been corrected by a corrigendum to include absence from the period 10.2.1994 to 18.2.1994. Both, the charge and the punishment have to be co-related with each other and be compatible. But such is not so in the present case. But the dismissal order which was passed is because of the absence on 10 March, 1994 which punishment has been corrected by a corrigendum to include absence from the period 10.2.1994 to 18.2.1994. Both, the charge and the punishment have to be co-related with each other and be compatible. But such is not so in the present case. It gives an impression to the Court that there was a biased approach of the management against the petitioner-appellant. 5. In the circumstances, the departmental enquiry itself is quashed. The appeal succeeds with costs.