JUDGMENT : Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge in A.S.No. 2663 of 1993, dated 03-4-2003, this LPA is preferred under Section 15 of the Letters Patent Act. 2. The respondent herein was removed from service on the basis of an inquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer in RC.No. 209/79/A(VJA), dated 03-2-1980. Aggrieved by the order dated 29-6-1981, the respondent preferred an appeal but the same was dismissed by the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director on 15-9-1981 and the suit in O.S.No. 331 of 1983 filed by the respondent was met with the same fate. Hence, he carried the matter in appeal in A.S.No. 2663 of 1993 on the file of this court. The learned Judge having heard the matter at length in a reasoned order was confined to set aside the order of dismissal and ordered reinstatement of the appellant with backwages, since the Enquiry Officer miserably failed to follow the procedure prescribed in Chapter-IV of Disciplinary, Suspension and Appeal Rules for imposition of major penalty or dismissal from service. The learned Judge in-extenso extracted the violations committed by the Enquiry Officer in conducting the inquiry. We have gone through the order very carefully and we are not called upon to take a different view from that of the learned single Judge in the matter since the order of dismissal emanated from an inquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer wholly unsustainable in law and not even the principles of natural justice have been followed by the Enquiry Officer. During the course of arguments, it came to light that the Enquiry Officer was appointed by the General Manager on 05-12-1979 and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 03-2-1980 by observing that the delinquent has not filed his final explanation though several opportunities were given to him to explain in-person. He relied upon the statement recorded by the Officer of the Corporation in the Preliminary Enquiry and the explanation offered by the delinquent in coming to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the delinquent were proved. In fact the charges were not framed by the Enquiry Officer as required in Disciplinary Rules but someone framed the charges. Since, the findings are not supported by any evidence whatsoever we are left with no other alternative except to confirm the order of the learned Single Judge. In fact the charges were not framed by the Enquiry Officer as required in Disciplinary Rules but someone framed the charges. Since, the findings are not supported by any evidence whatsoever we are left with no other alternative except to confirm the order of the learned Single Judge. The Counsel appearing for the Corporation tried to attack the judgment of the learned single Judge by contending that the learned single Judge has not taken note of the fact that in the arbitration was taken place the delinquent was asked to pay an amount of Rs. 5,911/-, which has become final. This fact itself will prove that the delinquent admitted the lapses on his part. But at the same time arbitration proceedings were not brought on record either before the Enquiry Officer or in the civil proceedings that have taken place thereof. Hence the counsel cannot be permitted to raise this issue at the LPA stage. 3. Before parting with the case, we are constrained to observe that the General Manager in his Proceedings dated 05-12-1979 while appointing the Divisional Manager, Rajahmundry as Enquiry Officer categorically directed him to conduct a detailed inquiry into the matter, obtain explanation of the delinquent to the charges framed against and to submit his inquiry report together with his findings thereof and record of the findings within two months positively. Though the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report within time but he did not follow the other directions given by the General Manager. Though the delinquent has categorically taken exception to the way the inquiry was conducted in his explanation submitted to the show cause-notice dated 07-501981 the General Manager without looking into the procedure laid down for imposing the major penalty and without satisfying himself whether the Enquiry Officer followed the procedure or not simply passed the order removing him from service by order dated 29-6-1981. The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director also without satisfying himself whether the inquiry was properly conducted by the Enquiry Officer and whether the Rules for that purposes were followed or not simply confirmed the order of removal from service in his proceedings Rc.No.16118/79-A.II.B, dated 09-3-1982. The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director also without satisfying himself whether the inquiry was properly conducted by the Enquiry Officer and whether the Rules for that purposes were followed or not simply confirmed the order of removal from service in his proceedings Rc.No.16118/79-A.II.B, dated 09-3-1982. Now nearly after a lapse of 22 years the court was forced to set aside the order of removal on the sole ground that the procedure prescribed for imposing major penalty was not followed by the Corporation and further forced to direct reinstatement with backwages, which is running into lakhs of rupees. Though we are conscious of the fact that these amounts are public monies, we are helpless in the matter and we are bound to follow the law of the land. Since the Officers of the Corporation miserably failed in discharge of their duties and the Corporation is placed in such awkward position we may also point out that this is not the first case of its kind. Invariably most of the inquiries conducted by the Departmental Officers are being set aside after a long lapse of time for not following the procedures prescribed in that regard and the Government and its authorities concerned are forced to pay backwages running into lakhs of rupees by collecting the same has to be collected through the nose of the tax-payers. Hence instead of embarking upon or entrusting disciplinary enquiries to inexperienced officers or officers with biased mind, they should think of appointing one person to each department well versed with the legal niceties with sufficient legal background and entrust the disciplinary enquiries so that the Government may not loose the cases in Courts of law on the ground of non- observance of procedures in disciplinary proceedings. By doing so, the disciplinary enquiries can be completed in record time and the appeals arising out of proceedings may come to an end at the earliest possible time. By doing so, not only the guilt of the culprit will be proved effectively but also public monies can be saved. 4. Since, the respondent is out of service for more than 22 years and is likely to retire within one year, the appellant-Corporation on receipt of a copy of this judgment shall take immediate steps to reinstate the respondent on duty forthwith. 5. Accordingly the L.P.A. is dismissed. No costs.